Volume 162 — Atlantic Reporter, Third Series

The claimant, Michael J. Beagan, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking review of a decision of the District Court affirming the denial of his unemployment benefits. Following his termination from employment with the defendant, Albert Kemperle, Inc., the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (DLT) denied Beagan's application for unemployment benefits on the basis that it had found he had been discharged for "disqualifying reasons" pursuant to the Rhode Island Employment Security Act. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Beagan sought review in District Court where DLT's decision was affirmed. The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari and held that legally competent evidence did not exist in the record to support the District Court's decision affirming the Board of Review's finding that Beagan was discharged for "disqualifying reasons" in the manner contemplated by the Rhode Island Employment Security Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the District Court, and directed entry of judgment in Beagan's favor.

The plaintiff, Adam Correia, was seriously injured when a friend's High Standard Model 1911 .45-caliber handgun accidentally discharged, causing a bullet to strike Correia in the abdomen. At the time of the accident, the friends were target shooting on property owned by the defendants, John Bettencourt and Theresa Bettencourt (the Bettencourts). Correia appealed from a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure granting the Bettencourts' motion for summary judgment. This case came before the Supreme Court sitting at Woonsocket High School, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties' written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court and concluded that the factual circumstances before the Court did not give rise to the imposition of a duty on the defendant.

The defendant, Jesus Danilo Fuentes, appealed from a judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of the following two counts: Count One, the first-degree murder of Henry Vargas, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-23-1 and Count Two, the discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of violence, resulting in the death of Henry Vargas, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-47-3.2(b)(3). On appeal to this Court, the defendant primarily contends that "the trial justice erred when he refused to give an eyewitness identification jury instruction approved by this Court in State v. Werner, 851 A.2d 1093, 1102 (R.I. 2004)" (the Werner instruction). The Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err in denying the defendant's request for an eyewitness identification instruction based verbatim on the Werner instruction. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment of conviction.

On July 30, 2012, three persons were brutally murdered in the Arbor Glen housing complex in Providence during an attempted robbery that took a tragic turn. Then-sixteen-year-old Quandell Husband (defendant) was indicted, tried, and convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, three counts of discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence, and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery. The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court, which concluded that that the trial justice erred by not excluding certain evidence of an unrelated shooting under an analysis pursuant to Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

The respondent mother, Briana Hebert, appealed from a decree of the Family Court finding that she abused and neglected her daughter, Adrina T. On appeal, Ms. Hebert contended that the Family Court justice erred in making her findings because she allegedly: (1) overlooked and misconceived the evidence (2) erroneously relied on two opinions of this Court and (3) ignored evidence contradicting her findings because she did not find Ms. Hebert credible. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court justice erred because her findings of fact were not supported by sufficient legally competent evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Court vacated the decree of the Family Court as it pertains to Briana Hebert.

The parties in this case are before the Supreme Court on cross-appeals from a Superior Court judgment following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Matthieu W. Yangambi (plaintiff), on a single claim of employment discrimination based on national origin. The defendants, the Providence School Board and the City of Providence (defendants), have challenged the Superior Court justice's jury instructions on several grounds, and argue that the Superior Court justice: (1) applied an incorrect law concerning evidentiary presumptions in an employment discrimination case (2) improperly weighed the evidence and (3) invaded the province of the jury. The defendants also contend that the Superior Court justice erred when she vacated the jury's finding that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The Court declared that, although defendants did not articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for their adverse employment decision, they presented some evidence sufficient to overcome judgment as a matter of law. In regard to the jury instructions, the Court held that Superior Court justice did not err in applying the law of evidentiary presumptions or invade the province of the jury, because the defendants did not satisfy their burden of production. Finally, the Court was of the opinion that the trial justice did not erroneously vacate the jury's finding on mitigation of damages, as the plaintiff applied for many administrative positions within Providence and was not required to seek employment outside of that municipality.

The defendant, Boghos Terzian (the defendant), appeals from judgments of conviction entered in the Superior Court following a jury trial. The defendant was convicted on three counts of felony assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of carrying a pistol without a license. Before the Supreme Court, the defendant contended that the Superior Court justice erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by police during a warrantless entry and search of his home. The state asserted that consent and exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry and search of the defendant's home. The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument and held that the warrantless search was in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that the admission of the firearm did not amount to harmless error. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the case for a new trial.