An man appealed his restraining order preventing him from contacting his ex-wife. He argued that the lower court did not properly establish a finding of domestic abuse despite his ex-wife’s testimony that he repeatedly used vulgar and threatening language towards her, at times placing her in fear of physical harm.
A non-profit corporation filed a claim protesting the validity of a regulation requiring specific facilities, procedures, and personnel whenever a pregnancy is terminated within the geographical boundaries of Rhode Island, arguing that the regulations failed to consider the life of the unborn child.
In DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., a female employee sued her employer and supervisor for sex discrimination in violation of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act and the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act. In deciding the case, the court set out a three-step approach for determining liability.
In this case, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a parent seeking to relocate out of the country with children in their custody need not make a showing that their reasons for relocation are “compelling.” Rather, the Court cited the “time-honored axiom that the primary consideration and paramount concern in all matters relating to custody is the best interests of the child.” In determining the child’s best interests, requiring a parent to demonstrate that the reason for moving was compelling would overly burden a
A husband and wife filed cross-petitions for legal separation rather than an absolute divorce where the matrimonial bonds are completely broken. The Family Court dismissed both petitions because the husband’s stated reason for seeking legal separation was “irreconcilable differences.” The text of the statute ordaining legal separation seemed to require that it be an interim measure pending the reconciliation of the parties. Legal separation because of irreconcilable differences therefore, on its face, seemed to be an inconsistent proposition.
The defendant appealed a 12-year prison sentence, arguing that his sentence was excessive given that there was no evidence he used violent force or penile penetration.
A woman and her husband were convicted of murder, and the woman appealed her conviction, arguing that her husband’s severe abuse prevented her from fairly defending herself at trial. Evidence of the abuse was discovered one year after the completion of trial, when the woman and her husband were placed in separate prisons.
In this case, the Rhode Island Supreme Court set out the standard of review with which to view the constitutionality of laws that discriminate based on gender: “If an act employs a gender-based classification, it is subject to a middle-tier scrutiny in which the classification must be substantially related to the achievement of the statutory objective.”
Under Rhode Island General Laws § 11-37-13, if a defendant charged with sexual assault intends to introduce evidence at trial that the victim has engaged in sexual activities with other persons, they must give prior notice to the court of the intention to introduce such evidence. The notice must be given orally and out of earshot of any other spectators or jurors. Upon receiving such notice, the court must order the defendant to make a specific offer of the proof that they intend to introduce, and the court will rule on the admissibility of the evidence before it can be offered at trial.
A person is guilty of first degree sexual assault in the state of Rhode Island if they engage in sexual penetration with another person, and the accused knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally or physically incapacitated; or the accused uses force, coercion, stealth, or surprise; or engages in medical treatment or examination for sexual purposes.
