State v. Victor Arciliares, 194 A.3d 1159

Victor Arciliares was convicted by a jury (2012) of second-degree murder and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence; he was sentenced to lengthy terms.
Arciliares timely appealed; while the appeal was pending he obtained a remand (2013) to file a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (state did not oppose remand).
After remand, Arciliares filed supplemental memoranda (2015–2016) asserting a new ground for a new trial: the trial justice’s involuntary-manslaughter jury instruction lacked language referring to “criminal negligence” in light of this Court’s decision in State v. Diaz (decided July 2012).
The Superior Court granted a new trial based solely on the jury-instruction/Diaz argument without addressing the originally remanded newly discovered-evidence claim.
The State sought certiorari; this Court held that the trial justice exceeded the scope of the remand by considering a Diaz-based instruction challenge that was available before remand and therefore quashed the Superior Court’s order, remanding only to permit consideration of the newly discovered-evidence claim.

Issue	State's Argument	Arciliares' Argument	Held
Whether the Superior Court could consider a Diaz-based challenge to the involuntary-manslaughter jury instruction on remand	The instruction claim was procedurally improper on remand and outside the limited scope (newly discovered evidence) of the remand	Diaz announced a rule requiring jury instructions to reference “criminal negligence,” so the instruction error warrants a new trial	The trial justice exceeded the remand scope by entertaining the Diaz-based instruction claim; Superior Court’s order granting a new trial on that basis was quashed
Whether this Court should resolve whether Diaz announced a new rule of law	The State argued the remand did not authorize relitigation of issues available earlier; asked court to quash without reaching Diaz’s novel-rule status	Arciliares urged that Diaz did create a new rule justifying relief	The Court declined to decide whether Diaz announced a new rule, noting the remand-scope error and expressing doubt that Diaz announced a new rule

State v. Diaz, 46 A.3d 849 (R.I. 2012) (defendant relied on this opinion to argue jury instructions must reference "criminal negligence")
Willis v. Wall, 941 A.2d 163 (R.I. 2008) (lower courts should not "read between the lines" of appellate decisions)
Butterfly Realty v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc., 93 A.3d 1022 (R.I. 2014) (mandate: remanding court may not exceed scope of remand)
Pleasant Management LLC v. Carrasco, 960 A.2d 216 (R.I. 2008) (remand limits lower-court relitigation of issues beyond remand)
State v. Hockenhull, 525 A.2d 926 (R.I. 1987) (discusses language equating gross negligence with criminal negligence for involuntary manslaughter)
State v. Cacchiotti, 568 A.2d 1026 (R.I. 1990) (involuntary manslaughter may be based on gross or criminal negligence)
McVay v. State, 132 A. 436 (R.I. 1926) (historical authority equating gross negligence with criminal negligence in manslaughter context)