Joseph Hall v. State of Rhode Island, 60 A.3d 928

Hall was convicted in 2006 of multiple firearm and related offenses in Rhode Island state court.
During trial, Agent Troiano testified that Hall's statement was not accurate; the judge offered a curative instruction or mistrial.
Hall opted for a cautionary instruction; no objection was lodged to the instruction.
Hall timely pursued postconviction relief in 2008, challenging the trial's jury instruction and the vouching testimony.
The trial court granted counsel to withdraw and denied the petition, finding no merit in Hall's claims.
On appeal, Hall argued vouching tainted the trial and that the cautionary instruction failed to cure prejudice; the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether vouching by a state witness and the curative instruction deprived Hall of a fair trial	Hall argues vouching was prejudicial and not cured by the cautionary instruction	State contends the issue was adequately preserved by defense objection and cured by instruction	Issue waived; respect to misinstruction barred by res judicata; affirmed
Whether the postconviction relief denial was proper given res judicata	Hall asserts new claim merit; not properly precluded	State asserts claim is procedurally barred under §10-9.1-8	Claim precluded; affirmed the denial of relief

Taylor v. Wall, 821 A.2d 685 (R.I. 2003) (res judicata governs postconviction relief grounds)
Price v. Wall, 31 A.3d 995 (R.I. 2011) (need for merit to overcome estoppel)
Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615 (R.I. 2009) (interest of justice exception to res judicata)
State v. Higham, 865 A.2d 1040 (R.I. 2004) (preservation and review limitations for curative instructions)