![promis system cases ri promis system cases ri](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/326659434_Prospective_Validation_of_Patient-Reported_Outcomes_Measurement_Information_Systems_PROMIS_CAT_Scores_in_a_Hip_Preservation_Population/links/5cdc0e23299bf14d9598e03e/largepreview.png)
![promis system cases ri promis system cases ri](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/respondingtohealthsystemfailureontuberculosisinsouthernafrica-180702180121/85/responding-to-health-system-failure-on-tuberculosis-in-southern-africa-4-320.jpg)
At a jury trial in Washington County Superior Court, two contrasting versions of events were described by defendant and the complaining witness, Jane.2 The nine-day trial included seventeen witnesses, both lay and expert, and a large number of exhibits pertaining to serious allegations of sexual assault by defendant. The events giving rise to the charges began on the evening of July 16, 2015, and continued into the early morning hours of July 17, 2015. Two of the first-degree sexual assault counts were based on allegations of oral penetration (counts two and three), and two counts were based on allegations of anal penetration (counts one and five). 1956 § 11-5-3 (counts six and seven) and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of § 11-5-2 (count four). 1956 § 11-37-2 (counts one, two, three, and five) two counts of assault and battery, in violation of G.L. 1 -1- I Facts and Travel On September 30, 2015, a grand jury indicted defendant on four counts of first-degree sexual assault, in violation of G.L. This Court has consistently held “that the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable, even though such an appeal is interlocutory.” State v. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the order of the Superior Court. After carefully considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. This case came before the Supreme Court on October 3, 2019, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.
![promis system cases ri promis system cases ri](https://www.dovepress.com/cr_data/article_fulltext/s249000/249079/img/PPA_A_249079_T0001.jpg)
The defendant, Christopher Forlasto, appeals from a pretrial order of the Superior Court denying his motion to dismiss one count of first-degree sexual assault on the grounds of double jeopardy and prosecutorial misconduct.1 The defendant also appeals from the same pretrial order granting the state’s motions in limine to exclude certain photographic evidence and to admit evidence of a jury’s prior guilty verdict against the defendant, as well as previously acquitted conduct. : Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 222-3258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. 404(b) at his retrial was an issue not properly before the court and (2) Defendant's prosecutorial misconduct argument was not preserved for appeal.
![promis system cases ri promis system cases ri](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41582-018-0024-9/MediaObjects/41582_2018_24_Fig1_HTML.png)
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first argument conflated a double jeopardy contention with one that was evidentiary, and whether Defendant's acquitted conduct was admissible under R.I. The trial justice denied Defendant's motions. Defendant further sought to exclude any reference to acquitted conduct from the first trial. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the sole remaining count, arguing that double jeopardy barred a retrial of acquitted conduct that arose from the same set of facts previously decided by the jury and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. When it became evident that the State would retry Defendant on the deadlocked count, Defendant filed several pretrial motions. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss one count of first-degree sexual assault on the grounds of double jeopardy and prosecutorial misconduct, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims.ĭefendant was found guilty of assault and battery and acquitted as to several offenses, but as to the charge for first-degree sexual assault based upon anal penetration, the jury deadlocked and did not reach a verdict.