126 A.3d 447
R.I.2015Background
- Roma and Lori sued landlords for failing to maintain premises after Roma fell on June 12, 2011 at 10 Elm Street, West Warwick.
- Plaintiffs filed on November 10, 2011 alleging negligence and loss of consortium for Lori.
- A three-day jury trial began January 28, 2011.
- During trial, plaintiff's counsel reported that jurors may have heard a remark about melanoma; two jurors were questioned in chambers.
- Trial court declined to discharge jurors and allowed deliberations; verdict for defendants entered January 31, 2014 and appeal followed.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and denied relief on motion to pass due to alleged juror misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of motion to pass due to juror misconduct was an abuse of discretion | Roma argues jurors biased by remark; motion to pass should have been granted | Moreira defends trial court’s voir dire and credibility finding | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether the juror interview in camera was proper and sufficient | Interviews insufficient to assess credibility | Court properly questioned jurors and observed demeanor | Proper and valid credibility determination, no reversal |
| Whether failure to grant a mistrial/pass motion requires reversal based on juror prejudice | Jurors' bias affected deliberations | No clear prejudice; voir dire and demeanor showed fairness | Not reversible; discretion to pass not abused |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pacheco, 763 A.2d 971 (R.I. 2001) (motions to pass and mistrial are discretionary for trial judges)
- State v. Figueroa, 673 A.2d 1084 (R.I. 1996) (grounds for passing a case due to misconduct considered)
- State v. Alston, 47 A.3d 234 (R.I. 2012) (great weight given to trial judge's rulings on prejudice)
- State v. Brown, 9 A.3d 1232 (R.I. 2010) (prejudicial remarks do not automatically require passing a case)
- State v. Robat, 49 A.3d 58 (R.I. 2012) (motion to pass treated as mistrial-equivalent for purposes of appeal)
- Rosario v. Rosario, 14 A.3d 206 (R.I. 2011) (procedural reference to appellate review of issues raised by motions)