Gary Tassone v. State of Rhode Island

The petitioner, Charles Smith (petitioner), was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the gruesome killing of his ex-wife's daughter. After the Supreme Court denied the petitioner's appeal of his conviction, he filed this petition for postconviction relief (the petition), arguing that his trial counsel (1) failed to sufficiently inform the trial justice of the petitioner's mental health issues and (2) neglected to present evidence that, because the petitioner was not taking his medication at the time of the offense, he was incapable of inflicting the requisite harm to justify a sentence of life without parole. The Superior Court denied the petition and held that trial counsel's decision to not call the petitioner's doctor to testify at sentencing was strategic, and further, that the petitioner had not presented evidence showing that trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The hearing justice further found that the petitioner did not meet his burden of showing prejudice. The Supreme Court discerned no error in the Superior Court's conclusion and declined to second-guess the determinations made by the Superior Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

In this property dispute between neighbors, Michelle A. Blechman and James W. Blechman (collectively, plaintiffs), appealed from a Superior Court judgment, following a bench trial, in favor of the defendant, Donald Woodward. The plaintiffs argued that the trial justice erred: (1) in her determination that they failed to show hostile and adverse use of the disputed area by clear and convincing evidence; (2) by failing to conduct a proper analysis of each element of adverse possession under G.L. 1956 § 34-7-1; (3) by finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite ten-year period necessary to succeed on an acquiescence claim; and (4) in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for a prescriptive easement without complying with Rule 52(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. After carefully considering each of the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.