Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Vorgvongsa

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided February 16, 1996No. 94-752-M.PPublished

1DissentMurray, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial justice’s decision in granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial. As with the majority, I too accept the trial justice’s findings of credibility, but I do not believe that the trial justice abused his discretion. I do not find that the trial justice’s decision was clearly wrong or that he misconceived or overlooked a material fact.

This court has clearly delineated the function of a trial justice when considering a motion for a new trial. When deciding a motion for a new trial, the trial justice begins by undertaking a three-step analysis…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. State v. BanachSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1994
  3. State v. MariniSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1994
  4. Welsh Manufacturing, Division of Textron, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1984
  5. State v. DameSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1989

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API