Volume 195 — Atlantic Reporter, Third Series

The defendant, James Oliveira, appealed a Superior Court order denying his motion to reduce sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant argued that the trial justice abused his discretion when he departed from the original sentence after retrial and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. According to the defendant, the court essentially punished him for successfully appealing his conviction. After a thorough examination of the record, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice gave ample consideration to the defendant's conduct, including fourteen disciplinary infractions at the Adult Correctional Institutions occurring after the first trial that shed light upon the defendant's life, health, habits, conduct, and mental and moral propensities, when he decided to impose the maximum sentence permitted under the statute. The Court held that the sentence was neither without justification nor grossly disparate from other sentences generally imposed for similar offenses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The defendant, James Dalton, appealed from a Superior Court judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault. The defendant argued that the trial justice erred when he allowed the responding police officer's testimony commenting on the complaining witness's credibility to stand. According to defendant, this testimony was impermissible bolstering or vouching of the witness's credibility. After carefully reviewing the trial testimony, the Supreme Court held that the defendant's argument with respect to impermissible bolstering or vouching testimony was waived on appeal because the defendant did not preserve that issue by specific objection at trial. The Supreme Court concluded that merely voicing an objection at the precise moment alleged impermissible bolstering or vouching testimony occurs, without more, is not a sufficiently specific objection to preserve the issue for appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.