*1 580 (as well found that “Ritchie’s interest
insрection
sought
DCYF records Court
after
Commonwealth)
ensuring
no
in
and
contained
rele-
concluded
the
fully by
absence of which
protected
requiring
vant materials the
would
fair trial can be
right to cross-
infringe
the defendant’s
only to the
the
files be submitted
CYS
complaining
Accord-
60,
examine
witness.
at
court for
camera review.” Id.
trial
in
ingly, the remand order that we deemed
1002-03,
“An
94
at
at
L.Ed.2d
59.
107 S.Ct.
Kelly
in
appropriate
is uncalled
in the
in
the trial court will serve
camera review
instant case.
destroying
interest without
Ritchie’s
protect
confi-
need to
Commonwealth’s
We note further that one
United
dentiality
in
leading case
of those involved
child-abuse
Supreme
hold-
States
Court’s
1003,
61,
ings
pretrial right
investigations.”
at
on defendant’s
confi-
Id.
107 S.Ct. at
records,
Ritchie,
Pennsylvania v.
480
dential
vania remanded the case to Court un- shielding confidential information judge “to examine the trial with direction embarrassing pub- necessary potentially camera, and confidential material in release scrutiny. lic made the verbatim statements foregoing reasons defendant’s daughter Id. For counselor.” at CYS judg- The (citing appeal 50 is denied and dismissed. 107 at 94 L.Ed.2d at S.Ct. affirmed, Ritchie, Pa.Super. ments of conviction Commonwealth v. (1984)). 472 A.2d are remanded to papers this case Superior Court. Pennsylvania Supreme Court later ex The panded upon Superior ruling Court’s counsel was enti
found that defendant’s through daughter’s
tled entire to search in order determine what informa
CYS file cause. might be useful to defendant’s Pennsylvania Supreme noted that Court judge’s in review of the files
a trial camera opportuni “den[ies] was insufficient as et al. Robert J. BANDONI eyes ty to the files reviewed with the an advocate.” Common perspective Ritchie, Pa. wealth v. et Rhode Island al.1 STATE (1985). 95-563-Appeal. No. granted Supreme States The United the Penn- certiorari and thereafter reversed of Rhode Island. Supreme Court Court, Supreme finding that the de- sylvania did “not to material evidence fendant’s July 1998. authority to unsupervised search include the Ritchie, files.” through the Commonwealth’s 94 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S. Supreme United States
at 58. Instead the granted April plain- On During pendency appeal the defendant. of this of Rhode Is- State request and substituted the C. remove the name Robert tiffs filed a motion to party- caption of case land. from the Harrall *2 chapter 28 of title Three
fled G.L.1956 later, years delegates to the 1986 Consti- article tutional Convention ratified crime,” “Rights entitled of victims to Rhode Island’s Constitu- amendment *3 significant legisla- It is neither the tion. provides for mone- tion nor the amendment tary damages in event that officials charged notifying with crime victims their presents rights fail so. Hence this case to do legal for our consideration a novel issue: monetary damages does a cause of action for officers, against municipal accrue state or capaci- their or their individual either official notify ties, fail to when these officers statutory constitution- victims of their and/or Although sympathetic rights?2 al remain we way in no condone the to crime victims and notify officials’ failure Legisla- rights, opinion we are of ture, Court, is the branch proper and not this plethora government address type presented of situation. issues Accordingly judgment we affirm justice plaintiffs’ com- trial to dismiss upon plaint for a claim which failure state Marran, Marty Cranston, C. for Plaintiff. may granted. relief Kolb, Attorney Assistant William Mark Powers, Providence, General, Kathleen M.
for Defendant. WEISBERGER, C.J., and Before History3 Factual BOURCIER,
LEDERBERG, FLANDERS GOLDBERG, JJ. 1,1992, J. Bandoni August On Robert (Robert) motorcycle in the operating a was
OPINION Lorraine as Coventry his wife with town GOLDBERG, Justice. еvening, how The Bandonis’ passenger. his they ever, tragically cut short In 1983 the Rhode Island General Assem- operated Robert by a truck Rights, Bill of codi- were struck bly enacted the Victim’s address argument, We shall Following plaintiffs a on this matter. filed conclusion oral supplemental urging this Court to memorandum IV. A. these comments infra monetary recognize dam- a cause action particular ages instance,” only “as viable in this judgment reviewing justice’s 3. When trial potential opposed to other remedies plaintiff’s complaint grant a motion dismiss during argument. this mem- oral With discussed failure to state claim plaintiffs have waived we deem the orandum allegations granted, Court assumes that remedies, and we consideration our complaint are and views true contained in the to whether therefore limit our discussion shall they light to the non- most favorable the facts in the monetary have stated cause moving party. Asso- See St. James Condominium juncture requested, early At this (R.I.1996). Lokey, ciation Therefore, plaintiffs to take the note that the dissent refuses relevant alie- contains the vehemently disagrees this section with our at their word and (Richardson). Richardson, claim, count com- L. Jr. Lorraine the Bandonis filed two counts, plaint, against later amended three wreckage was thrown clear and suf- Coventry, the of Rhode State town injuries. Unfortunately, minor fered (col- entities, Island, agents of and the injuries, including Robert sustained serious defendants), they asserting that had lectively leg pelvis. shattered left Richardson dates, been of Richardson’s court advised charged at the was arrested scene alia, have, objected would inter driving subsequent A while intoxicated. requested plea bargain and restitution analysis chemical confirmed that Richard- Richardson. son’s blood-alcohol content was more than alleged 1 and 2 a common law Counts Thereafter, August limit. twice negligence theory against the state and Coventry po- Lorraine contacted the notify town for defendants’ failure *4 give concerning lice to statement the acci- a pending ease Bandonis of criminal It dent. this time that Lorraine addition, against Richardson. In Count 3 set requested and received assurances that she monetary forth that a cause of action for kept apprised Robert and would be directly emanates from article pending against criminal case Richardson. Rhode Island Constitution. learn, however, theAs Bandonis would later memoranda, Following the submission against pro- case the criminal Richardson justice granted to trial defendants’ motion quickly knowledge. and ceeded without their 12(b)(6) Rule pursuant dismiss the Su- perior Rules of Civil Procedure for Court August On Richardson was ar- upon a failure to state claim raigned in Third Division District Court granted. charged driving one count of with while appeal proceed the Bandonis under On Later, September intoxicated. depriva- negligence both and constitutional knowledge, also without the Bandonis’ Rich- monetary damages tion theories to recover appeared pretrial ardson a conference notify of their defendants’ failure them negotiated bargain he plea whereby where so, doing In victims. permitted plea he was to enter a of nolo they propose Bandonis be allowed charge contendere to a reduced of “reckless they conduct a mini-trial in which would ad- driving against public and other offenses justice pres- Superior dress trial safety.” Richardson’s included sentence one they impact ent victim’s statement probation year’s unsupervised loss with no present should been at Richard- able license, contribution to the Vic- $250 pretrial son’s The Bandonis ar- conference. Fund, Indemnity tims’ he and was ordered to hearing gue that if after their statements pay court costs. justice trial that a reasonable determines judge res- District Court would have ordered preparation against In for a civil lawsuit titution, then such amount would be mea- Richardson, the Bandonis retained counsel to We, however, damages. re- sure of their investigate pursue their claim. It was at recognize sрectfully decline to either claim. this time that the Bandonis first learned that against case criminal Richardson had II opportunity resolved without an been Negligence Claim to G.L. them address court. Pursuant 45-15-5, the Bandonis a claim filed they argue The Bandonis have estab- Coventry, arguing that town town case common law prima lished a facie disregarded statutory officials their had negligence by demonstrating that both the by failing constitutional duties to have ad- legislation Rights Bill of and the Victim’s the Bandonis of their as crime vised amendment ap- rejected place on defendants to After the council affirmative duties victims. town complaint. gations that the Bandonis aver their amended
prise Rights, For rights. of their The Ban- Island Commission Human crime victims (R.I.1996). Furthermore, donis contend that defendants’ inexcusable A.2d comply cogniza failure with these duties consti- not when statute establishes requiring monetary damages tutes breach law, “subject to at common that statute is ble compensate injuries. them for We Design, strict construction.” Accent Store agree. Among statutory rights do not House, Inc., Inc. v. Marathon allegedly §§ violated were G.L.1956 (R.I.1996). * * * rights. (a) “12-28-3. General — concede, this case Bandonis prosecuting To be informed must, duty requiring that a crime vic request officer of restitu- disposition tion be an to be of their did element the final tims notified Indeed, of a case.” Is exist at common law. Rhode until the enactment of the it was not land Right “12-28-4.1. address re- Rights Bill of 1983 that garding plea negotiation.— Victim’s cognizable. P.L. rights first See became (a) acceptance by Prior court of Furthermore, 265, § ch. the Vic plea negotiation imposition of sentence entirely Bill Rights tim’s devoid pleaded a defendant who has nolo liability provision providing for civil because crime, guilty to a the victim contendere *5 shall, an to inform victims upon request, of official’sfailure crime of the criminal offense rights. Assembly opportunity be afforded the to address the their the General of Since impact regarding court the the de- negli which did not a cause action establish upon has had fendant’s criminal conduct us to gence, essentially the ask Bandonis the victim.” by judicial private create a cause of action held, however, long rule. Pretrial “We have “12-28-4.3. conferences —Mis- legisla in district court.— a demeanors creation of causes of action is new Inc., Design, Accent Store tive function.” (a) In all misdemeanor heard before eases Strack, 1226; 652 A.2d at Ferreira v. court, 674 alleged the district victim of 965, (R.I.1995) v. (citing Kalian op- A.2d 968 criminal shall be offense afforded Effort, during Through Community portunity People Acting to address court ** 429, 608, pretrial pretrial (PACE), conference' *. At A.2d Inc. 122 R.I. 408 conference, (1979)). Therefore, the victim shall be afforded the absence of 609 opportunity explain impact which to judi our provision, a must exercise such criminal conduct has had defendant’s Legis declining to divine cial restraint in to and comment on the the victim John, A.2d In re 605 lature’s intent. See proposed disposition of the case.” (R.I.1992) (“because does not the statute 488 action, “12-28-5.1. Restitution.— provide private a cause plainly inferred”); v. Knutson cannot be such When court orders a defendant to 445, 857 P.2d County Maricopa, victim of a 175 Adz. make financial restitution to the 1299, 1300 (refusing the defendant has been to create (Ct.App.1993) crime convicted or to which the defendant has negligence prosecu where cause contendere, pleaded guilty or nolo a civil hearing notify to a crime victim of a tor failed judgment automatically entered shall be rule); Bruegger v. Fari pursuant a court against trial the defendant 497 County Department, bault Sheriffs amount.” behalf of the victim that (Minn.1993) (holding that N.W.2d 262 duty officials required no law since common jurisdiction settled in this It is well inform crime victims language is unam that when the a statute because compensation, and receive financial and sensible biguous expresses clear remedy, provide Legislature failed meaning, interpret must the stat this Court exists). particular This is no cause of action give literally must the words of the ute Assembly when, here, the ly true General meaning. plain statute their оbvious noncompliánce, See, the issue e.g., Distributing v. Rhode was well aware of Wayne Co. the Ban- 12-28-7,4 negligence, § we next address opportunities had lie see numerous see, action, a cause of action e.g., argument that for a cause of donis’ second P.L.1994, directly the victims’ yet pro- may eh. did be derived action, crime vide victims with a cause itself. amendment inject judicial remedy
To time into at this plainly a statute that not contain a does III remedy, particularly is no when there evi- Tort Claim Constitutional suggest Legislature dence to had action, “would intended create cause of Constitutional delegates interpretation by Rhode amendment.” Rhode Island’s Consti Convention amended AFT, Teachers, Island Federation AFL- article entitled tution include Sundlun, (R.I.1991). v. A.2d CIO This “Rights of crime.” amend of victims Legislature In the event the should choose to ment, statutory previously enacted like its remedy, question no create such a there is counterpart, appears that victims to ensure capacity it has do so at time. compensation receive financial are entitled to See id. it is not the function But of the crime are to perpetrator from the super body as a act given make a victim’s opportunity already statutes enacted rewrite amend Today court. impact before the statement id.; Assembly. the General Ellis v. See twenty-eight other states have enacted simi Authority, Rhode Island Public Transit provisions,5 guaranteeing its lar each (R.I.1991); England A.2d New constitutionally protected rights, Co., R.I. Die Co. General Products jurisdictions, including Fed while other 298, 168 150, 154(1961). A.2d Government, debating presently eral Therefore, sig It is of the Ban- similar constitutional amendments. whatever merits nificant, however, be, opinion that none of these state donis’ claim we are of *6 constitutions, Island’s, including ex principles prevent Rhode of restraint us for duty plicitly of a a cause of action dam creating provides from a cause action where apprise rights ages in that officials who are to crime victims of their did the event informing charged victims of then- not exist at common and where our with crime law by comply. these states Legislature express neither terms nor fail to Instead liability. split approximately one-half ex by implication provided for civil See Inc., noncompli pressly at official’s Design, providing Accent A.2d 1226. an Store 674 Knutson, 1300-01; of for will result a cause action also 857 P.2d at Bru ance not See an Having damages to vacate other egger, 497 at 262. concluded N.W.2d and/or conviction,6 half damages for that a of action does not wise lawful cause 28; I, 8-A; I, § § § art. Const. art. Va. Const. 4. General Laws 1956 12-28-7 states: 1, I, 35; § Const. art. Wis. art. Wash. Const. validity "Noncompliance affecting of con- § viction, sentence, parole. 9m. afford or —Failure felony any of a offense of victim by chapter not constitute established this shall 6.See, 1, 8(3) ("[N]o e.g., Const. art. sec. Nev. grounds vacating an lawful con- for otherwise against person may the state maintain an action viction, voiding an lawful sen- or for otherwise damages any employee or public or for or officer parole tence or determination.” declaratory equitable injunctive, or or other crime as result relief of a victim of a a on behalf 557; Const. Ala. amend. Alaska art. 5. See Const. by legis any a of statute enacted of violation 24; 2, 2.1; I, § § Const. Const. art. Cal. art. Ariz. pursuant 2. No viola lature to subsection such 2, 28; 16a; 1, § § Const. art. Conn. Const. Colo. setting a conviction or sen tion authorizes aside 1, 1, 16(b); 8;§ § Idaho art. Fla. Const. art. continuing postponing a or criminal tence or 8.1; 22; I, 1, § § art. Ill. art. Ind. Const. Const. 1, 28(2) proceeding”); Utah art. sec. Const. 15, 15; 1, 13(b); § § Kan. art. Const. art. Const. ("Nothing be construed as in this section shall 47; 1, Rights art. Const. art. Md. Decl. of Mich. money damages, creating costs, cause of action for a I, I, 24; 32; § § Mo. art. Neb. Const. art. Const. fees, dismissing any attorney’s for or 28; 1, 8; 1, or § § Const. art. Nev. Const. art. N.J. any charge, or criminal II, 24; 22; criminal § Const. § I, art. N.C. art. N.M. Const. I, Proposed 37; 10a; judgment”). also Amendment See § § Okla. Const. Const. art. Ohio 1, 42; protect 2, 34; States the Constitution United Oreg. § § art. S.C. art. Const. victims, 71, 30; Cong. I, 24; 1, 105th § H.J. Res. § art. Utah Const. art. Tex. Const. 586 category into a nor the Amendment
falls
which their constitu
еd States Code
Fourth
Island’s,
tions, like
Id.
remedy.
Rhode
are either silent on
expressly provide for such
at
a
provi
or
2005,
this issue
have left
enforcement
397,
29
91
L.Ed.2d
627.
S.Ct.
Bivens,
Legislatures.7
sion to the
discretion
Analogizing
present
case
Since neither Rhode Island’s Constitution
should create
argue
Bandonis
Court
Rights legislation
nor its
Bill of
ex
Victim’s
injuries
a state Bivens action
for
suffered
pressly provide
a cause
action for dam
municipal
as a result of state
officials’
ages,
aver
this Court
Bandonis
notify
constitu-
failure
them their state
recognize
should
a constitutional
tort action
rights.8
tional
1,
23,
directly
from article
section
claim,
reaching
Before
the Bandonis’
how
Rhode
Island Constitution for
reasons
ever,
first address the threshold
we must
v.
in Bivens
Unknown
Six
articulated
23,
1,
question of
article
whether
Agents
Named
Federal Bureau Narcot
words,
self-executing;
in other
does the vic
ics,
388,
1999,
403 U.S.
91
29
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
“
(1971).
supply
‘a sufficient
tims’
amendment
619
right given may
rule
means of which the
Ar-
A. Tort
Bandonis’ Constitutional
duty
enjoyed
protected,
im
* * *
gument
posed
merely
[or
does]
be enforced
laying
principles,
indicate[]
without
down
In Bivens the United States
Supreme
principles may
rules means which those
a cause of
created
action
”
Davis v.
given
law[?]’
the force
violating
a result
of federal officials’
Burke,
179
21
U.S.
S.Ct.
citizen’s
under
the Fourth Amend-
(1900).9
ment,
despite
Because we con-
the fact that neither the Unit-
45 L.Ed.
251
Chilicky,
("[N]othing
§
S.Ct.
101
in this article shall
487 U.S.
(1988)
grounds
decision,
(declining
imply a
charging
L.Ed.2d
Bivens
for the victim overturn
sentence;
conviction,
alleged
process
dr a
to obtain
due
violations
action
trial;
stay
compel
Nothing
Security disability
trial.
benefits
new
denial
Social
give
any
ground
damages remedy
rise
claim
article shall
was not included
damages,
Congress);
provide grounds
for the accused or
nor
in the remedial scheme devised
relief");
Stanley,
offender to obtain
form of
convicted
107 S.Ct.
United States v.
U.S.
Cong.
(substantially
(1987)
(declining
SJ. Res.
simi-
105th
To determine whether may enjoyed, protect- general rights be provision self-executing, constitutional ed, enforced, we must conclude or many jurisdictions begin analysis self-executing. is not adopted by standard United States 1. The First Criterion Davis, Supreme supra: “ provision may A be said requires us to consider The first criterion self-executing supplies be it if sufficient amendment artic- whether victims’ right given rule means rights, includ- specifically enforceable ulates may enjoyed duty protected, be be ing the means which these imposed ma.y enforced; it is merely enjoyed protected, or whether self-executing merely when it indicates Shields, general principles. See espouses laying principles, without down rules The Bandonis concede that principles may means of which those the first sentence *8 * * * short, given of if the force law.’ In general of statement amendment is itself, complete in it executes itself.” rights containing neither concrete principle Davis, 403, 212, 21 45 179 U.S. S.Ct. at may rights by means which these be nor a added). See, (Emphasis L.Ed. at 251-52. assert, enjoyed protected. The Bandonis Gerhart, 219, e.g., 163 658 Shields v. Vt. however, rights are specific that fundamental (1995). 924, A.2d 928 remaining in of two sentences articulated consequently, and amendment From this model additional standards self-executing indicative of a facilitate the determination amendment is evolved to disagree. must provision. is We particular provision self-execut- whether law, (1900). question since, pivotal is Since this issue the victims’ as a matter of " turns, surprised appeal we are upon which provide ‘a rule does sufficient amendment analysis point buried in the right given may find the on by be en- means of which the ” Burke, footnote portions the dissent. See joyed protected.’ U.S. later Davis v. and infra 249, 19. 21 S.Ct. L.Ed. general determining spite first In of the fourteen set whether the criterion satisfied, is we scrutinize the amendment for 12-28-3, spe- § forth in as well as the more precision. detail and See Convention Center provisions cific means that other of the Vic- Committee, A.2d at 552. established, Rights Referendum Bill of statute all tim’s so, Upon doing by we are struck the amend- prior to the Consti- which were enacted scope lack ment’s broad and utter Convention, framers tutional elected by rights may enjoyed, means these which be 23, after much model article section protected, or enforced. focus two We on Legislative Purpose broader factors. Indeed, § language in 12-28-2. utilized section is almost identical article a. Article Section Mirrors 12-28-2, Assembly § the General “Legislative Purpose” Provision its intent to ensure crime vic- declared delegates When to the Constitutional Con- dignity, respect, treated tims are gathered vention the Victim’s Bill of sensitivity, possible, and whеnever receive Rights years legislation was three old compensation perpetrators from the financial already provide had been amended crimes, impact the crimes’ (now fifteen) general fourteen victims with brought to the courts’ atten- victims be P.L.1985, rights. 411, § ch. See Further- tion. more, version Bill of the 1986 of the Victim’s Rights provided in explicit terms the means § The fact that 12-28-2 does not pro- which some of could these be procedural means which crime victims enjoyed. example, tected gen- For one may enjoy protect their is not sur- right guaranteed right eral crime victims the provided by prising means since these prior sentencing “to address the Rights. Bill other sections Victim’s those cases where the defendant has been However, fact the framers chose to trial,” adjudicated guilty following § 12-28- rights amendment from model the victims’ 3(11), but, provided § the precise 12-28^4 Legislative § 12-28-2’s contours of broad right particular may means which this be knowing full oth- Purpose provision, well that enjoyed, stating that the victim’s statement chapter er sections within 28 contained more “prior made counsel for state rights as as the means which well sentencing making the defendant their rec- enjoyed protected ommendations,” and before defendant conclusion that arti- highly persuasive to our permitted to exercise her own his or only general prin- espouses cle § § 12- allocution. See 12-28-4. See also self-executing. ciples and is therefore not (extending right to 28-4.1 similar crime vic- pleaded tims nolo defendant crime). guilty
contendere or to a Another supported by even Our conclusion general right, although enacted after the § comparison 12- rudimentary most Convention, guaranteed that victims be rights amendment. 28-2 with the victims’ request that resti- informed of provides entirety in its 12-28-2 Section disposition. tution element of the final be an responsibility of recognition “In 12-28-3(15). 12-28-5, However, § See crime, community to Convention, prior in force which was assembly its intent to en- general declares provided the defendant’s conviction sure: felony, judgment a civil shall automati- conclusively cally enter favor of the victim *9 (1) are treated That all crime victims liability. Fur- establishing the defendant’s sensitivity all dignity, respect, thermore, required this section also the court process; justice phases the criminal or her known notify to the victim at his last (2) they receive possible That whenever judgment entry in his of the of a civil address or injury their compensation for financial he or or her and inform the victim that favor crime; perpetrator the the loss from damages proof of in an she must establish judicial proceeding. See appropriate id. 12-28-3(11), §See impact That the full the tion was ever ratified. crime (“To P.L.1983, 265, § by eh. be as enacted
upon brought to the victim the attention prior right to address the court afforded the the court.” sentencing the defen- to in those cases where comparing After to the victims’ this section adjudicated guilty following a dant has been amendment,10 rights dif- the discernible trial”). (providing § also 12-28-4 the See 23, is ference is that article section ex- by which crime victims precise procedures factor, mandatory pressed in This terms.. the right to address court can exercise however, not influence our conclusion does Therefore, contrary to sentencing). before provision may be ex- since assertion, section the article dissent's pressed mandatory terms not and still be provides crime victims with no additional self-executing. See 16 Am.Jur.2d. Constitu- by the rights beyond promulgated Gen- those (1998). § tional Law 98 Assembly in eral 1983. The dissent concludes that article sec- rights specific establishes individual to Provide Crime b. Framers’ Failure points to the last sentence of section 23 Remedy with a Victims support. provides, This last sentence Furthermore, note that the victims’ sentencing, a victim “[b]efore shall have rights expressly provide not amendment does right regarding the to the address court the damages. a cause of action for While the impact perpetrator’s which the conduct ipso does absence of a not facto the upon has had victim.” that articlе defeat the Bandonis’ contention conclusion, self-executing, support self-executing To section it is an additional supposedly “conspicu- the notes our that the victims’ amendment dissent indication ously right provide ] of] this latter our does a sufficient rule which omi[ssion [in not given may enjoyed protect- the constitutional the be conclusion] framers Shields, to A.2d at The Ban- ‘chose model’ the victims’ amend- ed. See 929. Legislative Purpose argument intent of the ment after the broader donis’ true Act, provide Rights Bill to of action for of the Victim’s framers was cause (unlike 23) persuasive article section neither would be more were we demonstrating right places presented the court in with evidence address simply of a victim nor overlooked the issue of hands details when this framers enjoyed.” However, right may noncompliance or On con- be a closer enforcement. rights” trary, inspection provision, drafting of the “General the amendment while § considering 12- “Legislative Purpose” provision if not had the benefit of framers (“the general assembly provides “[f]ailure itself declares in- 28-7. This * * * (3) felony impact That full afford of a offense tent ensure: the victim Bill of upon brought [the of the crime the victim is established Victim’s court”11), 12-28-2(3), Rights] grounds § attention of the re- shall constitute va- conviction, already cating lawful or for veals that crime victims had been an otherwise pa- right prior voiding lawful sentence given the to address the court an otherwise years 12-28-7. role Section sentencing three article see- determination.” before Const, 12-28-2, upon R.I. has had the victim.” 10. Similar victims' conduct 1, sec. 23. art. amendment states: shall, right, "A crime as a victim of matter Indeed, Legislature’s behind the reason agents dignity, of the state with treated explicitly victims with crime failure respect sensitivity during phases of all sentencing to address the before process. justice person shall Such criminal nothing been more than its realization have receive, perpetrator entitled to crime, course events “the full that in the normal any injuiy compensation impact brought financial the victim is crime, sentencing, perpetrator prior or loss caused of the court” attention already compensation as been and shall receive such other rather than after the defendant sentencing, Legislature may may provide. away led in handcuffs. Thus the the state Before including simply the words the court have concluded victim shall address superfluous. impact sentencing” regarding perpetrator’s which the "before *10 Clearly unnec- specter this section raises the section can be assumed to have been used, added,” noncompliance. essarily needlessly City or (R.I. Sundlun, Pawtucket v. only It equally apparent that could 1995), unnecessarily or omitted. Instead we provided the framers have for an enforce- carefully that framers must assume the mechanism, they ment in fact doing debated weighed the in each and considered words provide so and in the end such declined imply intended terms clause and those provision early in article section 23. An meaning. definite See id. proposed version of constitutional amend- ment, ratified, was not which contained the Bandpmos, Like the the dissent also looks provision: following beyond unambiguous the clear and words 2. our
“SECT. ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH article section and directs attention history A RIGHTS. victim of crime whose com- to the Constitutional Convention’s plaint brought filed “in any in and before wherein the dissent contends the framers Court of the shall fact for have State Rhode Island intended victims to enforceable independent law, the in courts.” have to sue the Because the dissent by in equity any proper proceed- purports have this conclusion af- reached sources, ing compel compliance having primary the ter we with afore- examined rights provided necessary respond said in Section 1 of find it in detail to offset this hearing any suggestion Amendment and the Court such that have taken liberties we may suit in its victim in this We discretion allow said historical record case. bringing simply following such suit to recover historical events a reasonable view attorney’s by light, long-standing fee.” a different colored in- precepts and of constitutional traditional proposed version of a amendment Another terpretation. (Resolution 86-140), was sent to the Commit- Style Drafting, stating tee on and that 86- The dissent contends that Resolution by “[t]hese shall be enforceable (minus resoundingly approved 140 was victims of crime and shall have recourse course) remedy, language providing for á any the law denial thereof.” The “only delegates that were assured after committee, however, struck out this last sen- style changes made were committee’s ” tence, and Resolution 86-140 was subse- only economy language.’ ‘for As we quently ratified section to become article demonstrate, however, the rec- shall neither law dissent ord this case nor the case theory. supports actually cites ignore ask Bandonis us First, great difficulty agreeing argu have final version of article section Drafting ing Style notwithstanding the fact on and Committee but text of Resolution 86-140 enforcement was struck down “altered” the economy language.” To Style Drafting, “for the Committee on reproduced eminently point, we have intent clear that a demonstrate our framers’ deletions) (both changes crime victim should be able enforce these additions Drafting Style rights through monetary of action that the cause Committee initial after its damages. argument But made Resolution 86-140 order merit, disregard As passage have on the floor of the Convention. we would have below, reasoning construction, rules of our well-established demonstrated whatever been, changes “[ejvery for the clause committee’s * * * language” is not force, “economy of given its due the rationale of constitution effect, cogently supported.12 meaning, no word [that] thirty-three 86- added to Resolution to note had the fram- words were 12. We are constrained thirty-four words were deleted. truly to do ers intended to alter the text and so whereas supposed language,” accomplished their purpose "economy solely Thus the framers economizing language margins. goal of the soon-to- the framers did so the narrowest of grand of one total An made be article examination of the alterations Style Drafting word. Committee on reveals that *11 words, In it per- enjoyed protected. other “Sec. 24. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. —All legisla- by the subsequent A clear sons -withinthis "State who-ar-e victims of that shall, right, put contemplated crime as a be treated the matter ture is by agents added.) respect dignity, the operation”). (Emphasis state with We into sensitivity during phases all of the considering the fram- opinion that are of the justice process. possi- criminal Whenever provide crime victims ers’ decision persons to re- shall entitled may compensation as state the “such other ble^Such perpetrator crime, ceive, from the the knowing neither the Constitu- provide,” any inju- compensation for financial their provide Laws crime the General nor by perpe- or losses caused from the riesy compensation, the such other victims with crime, trator shall such of the receive violation that separation-of-powers real may pro- compensation other as the state be for this Court dissent alludes would sentencing, They vide. Before a victim remedy. create a shall have the to address the court article To the conclusion that support regarding impact perpetra- which the self-executing, the dissent relies section tor’s conduct has had the victim. secondary textually two sources identical These shall be enforceable that the framers intended proposition they-shall recourse in victims of crime-and leaving spe- to mandate enforcement “while any denial thereof.” law provisions cific or mechanisms to deter- Likewise, apparent equally it is assembly and general of the mination pro- expressly deletion of the last sentence stated, However, simply these two courts.” viding victims “shall have recourse incorrectly cite to the Constitutional sources substituting in the for it the clause law” rеport. Judiciary Committee Convention’s compensation may “such other as the state Indeed, report only states resolve “to provide” nothing of a short substantive leaving the enforceability while cre- mandate Thus, only alteration. is not the deletion provisions or mechanisms to ation of language providing for “recourse in Assembly.” Report See the General the law denial” of that is of Relating Judiciary Committee to Victims analysis moment to our but the inclu- also (86-140) Not once Resolution at 5. Crime language sion of “and shall such receive throughout report does the Judicia- its entire may pro- compensation as the state mention, ry imply, even Committee ever added.) (Emphasis Practically vide.” specific provisions creation of speaking, impossible it is for the Bandonis to also be left to the courts. mechanisms should compensation “receive such other as the simply support not this con- The record does may provide,” article state clusion. contemplates, the state itself has not because accepting have trouble addition we also provided compensation.” for “such other On conclusion that Resolution 86- dissent’s acknowledges this issue even dissent delegates “only after approved give the state “has acted to reme- style committee’s were assured that protection deprived are dial economy changes ‘for the were made [rights].” courts in accord Other ” Convention language.’ Our review the instance, reasoning. with this For State v. “assurances,” proceedings no such finds Rodrigues, 68 Haw. P.2d any inquiry the floor promises, or even (1981), Supreme the Hawaii Court construed 86-140. modifications to Resolution about the phrase provided by law” in its consti- “as only reading inspection finds Instead our legislature tution “as direction Resolution proposed amendments with legislation.” implementing enact See also being words that introduced 86-140 Reorganized School District No. Wann rights was re- vietim[s’] resolution on “[t]his County, 293 St. Francois S.W.2d (Mo.1956) (the economy language and it drafted for the phrase provided “as single From now reads as follows.” “lays only general principle law” down delegates dissent surmises that legislature rules sentence the directs the explicit Resolution assurances that general right grants which it received which the *12 safeguarding grant act’s purpose was modified the of sion the settlement 86-140 (safe- economy language jurisdiction implied repeal of that no other sub- and of from (2) changes despite guarding provision) stantive were made. On the con- the and trary, intro- president when the safeguarding Convention fact that the was de- 86-140, prefaced Resolution prior gaming passage, duced he the to the act’s final leted voting by stating: explicit Rhode Island’s Senators received as- sponsor and surances the bill’s floor
“Essentially,
a section to the
adds
manager
grant
that the settlement act’s
of
of
requiring
constitution
that victims
jurisdiction
repealed.
would not be
Id. at
shall,
as a matter
by
of
be treated
supports
The record
the
698.
state’s asser-
agents
dignity
the
State with
and
following
and
collo-
tions
establishes that
respect
sensitivity during
phases
and
all
of
place
quy took
floor of the United
justice
person
process.
the criminal
Such
States Senate:
perpe-
shall be entitled to
from the
receive
compensation
trator of crime financial
* * *
“Mr. PELL.
In the interests any injury
by
perpetra-
loss
caused
specifi-
clarity,
language
I
have asked
tor of the crime
shall receive such
cally citing the
protections of
Rhode
compensation
may pro-
as the State
(Public
Act
Island Claims Settlement
Law
sentencing
vide. Before
a victim shall
395)
[the
from S.555
Indian
95— be.stricken
regard-
have the
the court
address
I
Gaming Regulatory
understand
Act].
impact
ing
perpetrator’s
which the
con-
protections clearly
that these
will remain
duct has had
the victim. That is
in effect.
86-140,
(Em-
Resolution
amended.”
colleague,
my
“Mr. INOUYE.
thank
added.)
phasis
Rhode Island [Mr..
senior Senator from
reading.
president’s
Moments after the
Pell],
protections
him that the
assure
86-140, delegates
amended Resolution
over-
Rhode
Settlement Act
Island Claims
whelmingly passed this version of Resolution
(P.L. 95-395),
in effect
remain
will
(without
in law lan-
86-140
recourse
Narragansett
clearly
that the
Indian Tribe
margin
guage) by
ninety-three
one.
civil, criminal,
subject
will remain
However,
delegates
even if
did
receive
regulatory
the State
Rhode
laws of
suggests,
explicit assurances as the dissent
Island.
legislators
statements
individual
or fram-
President,
I too
“Mr. CHAFFEE. Mr.
given
signifi-
ers are
talismanic
like to
the chairman [Mr.
would
thank
County,
Brock v.
cance. See
Pierce
U.S.
* *
Inouye]
*.
chairman’s statement
The
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
gam-
any high stakes
makes it clear that
(1986).
point
On
we find the
ing, including bingo, in Rhode Island will
opinion
recent
First Circuit Court
criminal,
civil,
subject
remain
Narra
Appeals in State
Rhode Island v.
regulatory
F.3d at
laws of our State.”
Tribe,
(1st
gansett Indian
F.3d 685
Cir.
added.)
(Emphases
1994),
particularly
to be
instructive.
explicit
Despite the
Narra-
Narragansett
Tribe the
assurances
Indian
First.
Tribe,
Appeals
the First Circuit had
gansett
faced with the
Indian
Circuit Court
claims
rejecting
state’s
since
Congress intended the
little trouble
question of whether
interpreta-
Gaming Regulatory
game
newly
“[i]n
[constitutional]
enacted Indian
tion,
jurisdiction
language is the ultimate
granted
a dec-
repeal
[constitutional]
Act to
Likewise, in the
trump
Set-
card.” Id. at 699.
in the Rhode Island Claims
ade earlier
reject-
bar,
Act,
little trouble
thereby subjecting the
case at
we too have
Narra-
tlement
criminal,
civil,
raised
ing
purported
assurances
gansett
Indians to the
indeed unmistak-
simple, and
regulatory laws of the
of Rhode Island.
dissent.
State
able,
is that
the constitutional
two-
fact
In manner reminiscent of the dissent’s
section
Narragansett
decided to add article
approach,
framers
pronged
the state
Constitution,
they did so means
argued
preliminary
to our
Tribe
that the
Indian
pen
pa-
requires putting
gaming
provi-
an exercise
act contained
version of
meaning
substantive
per.
Resolution 86-140.”
As the First Circuit articulated in re-
However,
jecting
hand,
argument similar
the dissent
dissent’s:
on the other
that article
bases
conclusion
Congress
spoken,
“Once
it is
bound
self-executing
ground
on the
that it estab-
said,
plainly
notwithstanding
what it has
right”
specific
“a
to address
lishes
individual
the nods and
winks
have been
sentencing.
This
prior
exchanged
floor
and committee
debates
*13
however,
right,
not
the
individual
was
all,
hearings.
proper
After
it is not the
original
of Resolution 86-140 and
version
legislators
role of
to use unwritten assur-
way
only found
into the final version
arrangements
after
ances or side
to alter the
the
for “the
the committee “altered”
text
meaning
agreed language.
clear
And
of
economy
language,” changes
dis-
judiciary
must stand as
ultimate
already
“not
sent has
told us were
intended
guarantor
integrity
of an enacted
meaning to alter the substantive
Resolu-
text.
statute’s
tion 86-140.”13
sum,
Congress
spoken,
“In
once
has
unambiguous
court cannot override the
and the Third
Second
Criteria
2.
an
words of
enacted statute and substitute
the court’s views of what
them
individ-
Turning
to the second and
our attention
Any
legislators likely
ual
intended.
other
criteria,
third
we note
the text
imports
subjectivi-
rule
a virulent strain of
not
victims’
amendment does
contain
and,
ty
interpretive
into the
task
in the
express
directive that
General Assem-
process,
large a
threatens to transfer too
bly
implement
Al-
act
the amendment.
Congress
legislative power
slice of
though the lack of mandate
ordinari-
would
the courts.” 19
F.3d
699-700.
ly tip the
in favor of a conclusion that
scales
self-executing,
article
we do
section
give primary
In
for us
order
effect to
surpris-
not
the lack of a mandate
consider
contemporaneous
words of one individu-
ing, considering
general
nature
planned
al’s
remarks moments
final
before a
in the
amendment.
articulated
victims’
86-140,
on
vote
Resolution
would have to
we
Shields,
addition,
See
at 929.
In
658 A.2d
eye
turn
blind
to our
rules
well-established
examining the
memo-
after
historical records
construction,
of constitutional
which states
Convention,
rializing
are
the 1986
we
left
presumed
in an
language
enact-
the undeniable conclusion that
fram-
carefully
ment was
considered before it was
to leave the enactment of an
ers intended
finally adoрted and “that when words in the
provision to the General Assem-
enforcement
ambiguity, they
constitution
free of
must
bly.
given
plain,
usually
ordinary,
meaning.” Sundlun,
accepted
By all
the issue of crime victims
accounts
45.
shall not do.
This we
having
the means
enforce their
was
Furthermore,
major
Ear-
topic
our conclusion that the
of discussion
debate.
Com-
Style
Drafting
ly
proposed
mittee
constitutional amend-
made substan-
versions of
provisions.
provided enforcement
tive amendments to Resolution 86-140 is but- ments
elicited,
addition,
testimony
urg-
public
none
tressed
source
other than
opinion.
ing
that a
amendment contain
dissenting
On the one hand
provision.
redrafted
an enforcement
Even the Judicia-
dissent insists
resolution was
solely
economy
ry
the enforcement issue
purpose
for the
of “the
Committee debated
“that the lack of enforcement
language” and “was not intended to alter the
and concluded
sentencing”
years
prior
article
necessary
We
three
before
find it
reiterate
fact
13.
12-28-3(11).
though
§
even
article
section
contains the
was ratified. See
section
prior
added.) Furthermore,
of a crime victim to address the court
(Emphasis
sentencing,
this inclusion alone cannot
stated,
provisions
existed at
previously
other
self-executing provision.
of a
We state
indicative
already provid-
time
the 1986 Convention
firmly and
this conclusion
without hesitation
precise procedures
vic-
ed the
12-28-3,
Rights, §
enti-
Bill of
since the Victim's
12-28-4;
right.
§§
See
tims
exercise this
rights,”
already provided
had
tled "General
12-28-4.1.
right to
the court
crime victims "the
address
major
§
civil
provisions
present
is a
contours of
12-28-5 to allow a
statute
* * *
defect,
therefore,
judgment automatically
to man-
in favor of
resolved
enter
enforceability,
leaving
pleaded
date
while
the cre-
the victim when the defendant has
contendere;
12-28-10,
specific provisions
ation
or mechanisms
guilty or nolo
Assembly.”
Report
General
See
the which establishes the creation of
Judiciary
Relating
newly
Committee
to Victims
unit.
In addition
services
to these
(Second
(86-140)
Crime
sections,
Resolution
at 5.
provisions
chapter
enacted
added).
emphasis
Considering the commit-
pro-
28 have been
and amended to
revisited
tee’s unanimous conclusion
the cre-
to leave
See, e.g., P.L.
protection.
vide additional
ation of specific
provisions
enforcement
P.L.1991,
1;
302, §
413, §
eh.
ch.
Assembly,
mechanisms to the General
we are
measures, however,
Despite
surprised
that the final
version
ratified
Assembly
failed
an en-
General
to enact
provi-
article
does not contain a
*14
provision
though
forcement
even
numerous
enabling
protect
sion
crime victims to
and
to
opportunities have existed
introduce such
rights. By
enforce their
means of the Judi
legislation.
Assembly’s failure
The General
words,
ciary
ap
Committee’s own
we find
provision, coupled
to enact
enforcement
parent
specific
that absent “the
creation
§
to
12-
preserve
with the fact it has elected
provisions
[by]
or mechanisms
the General
28-7, which addresses the issue of noncom-
Assembly” private
a
cause of action for dam
pliance,
supports our
that
further
conclusion
ages
II
was not intended.
v.
See Goldrush
private
a
cause of action
Marietta,
683,
City
267 Ga.
482 S.E.2d
Assembly
not intended
either
General
347,
(1997) (citing
Pendergrass,
State v.
or the constitutional framers.
(1981)
633,
De
63 Haw.
least
which concern the double
clause,
judicata,
the doctrine of res
accord B.
Prior Precedent
So-Called
satisfaction, joinder, the
statute of limita-
Additionally
on so-called
the dissent relies
tions,
immunity,
dissent
Island, as
precedent from Rhode
well
prior
page
takes a
from
Constitutional Conven-
states,
a
has authorized
as our sister
issue,
playbook,
tion’s own
ducks the
from their individual
direct cause of action
upon
justice
single
Superior
calls
have little trouble distin-
constitutions. We
play.
Court
con-
to make
dissent
reasoning
guishing this line of
since
cludes that “these are decisions
should
on the
cases are not the least bit instructive
Superior
made in the first instance
be
presented by
case—whether ar-
question
this
assured, however,
if
Court.” Rest
23, of the Rhode Island Con-
ticle
justice
assign-
trial
fumbles or
misses
provides
direct cause of action.
stitution
ment,
subject
play
will be
review
litany
too can cite
cases from
We
quarterback.
same
Indeed the dissent
jurisdictions supporting
proposition that
questions
raises more
than it
To
answers.
constitu-
specific provisions of other states’
sure,
question
the ultimate
before this
a direct
tions either do or do not
body
justice
reviewing
is whether the trial
action). But none of
cause of action {Bivens
complaint
when he ruled
erred
that the
failed
persuasive to answer the
these cases are
to state a claim
case,
presented by
giv-
specific question
this
granted. But when this Court remands a
en the fact
that Rhode Island’s victims’
proceedings,
case for
further
the dissent
simply
be com-
amendment
cannot
instance,
would do
also have the
we
clause,
equal protection
pared to New York’s
responsibility
provide adequate guidance
clause,
speech
or Ma-
North Carolina’s free
trial court. The fact that there will be
ryland’s
process or search and seizure
due
Monday-morning quarterback
available
clauses,
attempts to
as the dissent
do.
game play-by-play
dissect the
is of little com-
Accordingly,
fort
the trial court.
for all its
Similarly
to this
the dissent’s reference
important
efforts
most
the dissent leaves the
respect to
prior precedent with
tak-
Court’s
question
and most difficult
unanswered.
ings
suffers
the same infir-
clause cases
What are
Bandonis’ remedies?
highlighted
mities. This
two
distinction
(1)
glaring
takings
differences:
clause
Finally,
spite
of our conclusion that this
see, e.g.,
self-executing provision,
Annicelli
not-represent
appropriate
case does
cir-
Kingstown,
A.2d 133
v. Town
South
for this
cumstance
create a
(R.I.1983),
impor-
perhaps even more
judicially,
implies
that it
dissent
stands
tantly,
takings clause
the text of the
alongside
precedent.
comfortable
See Bi
remedy.
expressly provides
See art.
vens,
Arizona,
supra; Miranda v. State of
(“Private property
shall not be taken
sec.
384 U.S.
86 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 694
”)
uses,
just compensation
States,
public
(1966);
without
v. United
232 U.S.
Weeks
added). Therefore,
sym-
(1914) (exclusion
(emphases
while we
34 S.Ct.
The of these relief, types what long-established any, might appro if together with its standards — priate in the unjustifiable circumstances. See 10 Moore’s conclusion that the Bandonis 54.72[1][a], (3d Federal Practice at 54-132 have waived their non-monetary-damages ed.1997). (discussed below) Indeed the Bandonis themselves claims the unfortu- —has recognized possibility that other forms of nate effect here of truncating the Bandonis’ might they relief be awarded to them when complaint by foreclosing possibility stated in postargument this same memoran obtaining any additional relief to which dum certainly the authori “[i]t within they may rightfully beyond entitled mone- ty remedy, of the Court to declare a short of tary damages. purporting limit damages.”33 an action for plaintiffs’ decision monetary-damages claim, majority argument seizes majority contends that “the Bandonis by plaintiffs advanced supplemental raised, requested, suggested, never or even (filed memorandum with this Court after oral possible mentioned a solution short of mone- argument) monetary that a award is “the tary damages throughout any of the twists particular viable in this in- and turns of this entire case.”34 But this stance” and claims that it constitutes a waiv- assertion reading is refuted a mere byer the Bandonis of all other forms of relief postargument memorandum the Court has they However, to which be entitled. There, appended opinion. to its the Bandon- argument raise, do not believe that the Bandonis’ suggest, possi- and mention various should be construed this Court to consti- monetary damages. ble solutions short of tute a First, waiver of their they obtain whatev- possibility discuss the of resen- legally er tencing entitled to Although obtain the criminal defendant. *27 required by concerning tim receives such notification investigation. as is the criminal Thus cases, [this In act]. misdemeanor it shall be the argument there can be no credible that the Ban- responsibility agency of the law enforcement allege qualify donis did not to sufficient facts to making the arrest and of the victims' services statutory rights receive their as crime victims. * * * unit to make certain that the victim re- It is curious that in discussion of whether 28—3(c). ceives such notification.” Section 12— article of the Rhode Island Consti- they The Bandonis contend that did not receive self-executing, majority appar- tution also required by the notice law to enable them to ently recognizes judicial power to award any rights. exercise of the aforementioned monetary damages by remedies other than affir- enjoy order to act, enumerated under the matively citing a constitutional-law treatise for timely report crime victims must "make[] a proposition may provide injunc- that a “court cooperate!] of the crime and [] with law en- relief, declaratory spe- opposed tive or investigation as to the forcement authorities in the remedy damages,” 12-28-3(a). prosecution cific where there has been thereof.” Section Al- injury. though may prevented constitutional Mr. Bandoni have been reporting hospi- from he crime because was forget; immediately following talized 34. Lest the reader the Bandonis' com- for several weeks accident, (on plaint Super. R. Civ. P. Ms. Bandoni behalf of was dismissed on herself husband) 12(b)(6) fully cooperated and her disabled motion. Thus "the twists turns of by contacting just big law enforcement authorities this case” amount one one: the entire to incident, police immediately days in the after the constitutional curve ball thrown at the Bandonis statement, by giving by interpreting them a sworn "re- the victims’ amendment to questing receiving assurancе at that time” be unenforceable absent the creation express private right that she and her of an action. husband would be contacted Brown, (R.I.1989) R.I. (quoting State resentencing par- they “[i]n assert that * * * (1979)). The A.2d poten- unavailing, and ticular case any waiv agreed to such they have not tially only Bandonis dangerous,” it is because advocacy of a er, forceful go nor should their remedy does not far that such believe summarily punished monetary remedy be “Mr. Bandoni cannot enough in that & Mrs. unjusti peremptory and in such a time this Court fully position to their at the be restored question before In addition the Although this fied fashion. original sentencing.” entitled Bandonis are so, may prove I us not whether yet to be would foreclose ju type of damages awarding monetary possibility of the trial court’s —a they have stated a may only turn relief —but whether merely it dicial such relief because may any be upon form relief partial to the claim out to be a solution at best limitation, declar including without allega- granted, if plaintiffs, harm done to these them monetary dam Second, relief, injunction, atory Bandonis refer tions are true. Thus, majority recasts this issue ages. possible as a to restitution defendants involuntarily upon the foisting appeal remedy in lieu of from the crimi- on restitution all other premature waiver of injured Finally, in lieu of a Bandonis a nal who them.35 may award, entitled they relief which be monetary-damages forms of traditional of a presentation mere suggest they at least on the basis their should Bandonis argument this Court. The Bandonis’ Accordingly damages.36 entitled to nominal does, not be claim, only-viable-remedy argument should it majority question by the presented duck the our of used to Bandonis have “waived consideration Bandonis’ Superior dismissal of the that “this case has al- Court’s other remedies” and 12(b)(6) namely, complaint grounds, Rule ways monetary damages an action for been anything the Bandonis be entitled and has never been else” is belied whether alleged very they of relief because of defendants’ document have relied form rights. their waiver conclusion. violation their reach complaint Finally, did not it the Bandonis’ Thus is not the dissent that “refuses per monetary Rather merely ask for relief. plaintiffs take the at their word” that mone- tary for all such relief which damages viable Rule asked constitute “the Indeed, a trial on they may legally after remedy particular in this instance.” entitled majority mischaraeterizes refusing far from the Bandonis at the merits. take prayer for mone- word, request for relief —a agree with them that their “[t]he tary damages and “all such other tort/damages recognition [a] traditional just by Honorable of the crime victim’s deemed meet for this violation monetary integrity request for maintain the Court” —as a would serve to majority, the inclu- only. According to avoid conflict of our state constitution and “boilerplate language” was latter federally guaranteed with other state and sion lim- Superior Court was meaningless and the legislature until such time only monetary damages to majority awarding ited to act.” Because re- chooses Bandonis, such if were entitled to recognize any remedy for the fuses to such *28 Bandonis, Unfortunately for the rights, they it is relief. of crime victims’ violation ignores completely majority’s viewpoint refuse to take the and not the dissent who subject. authority weight legal on this of word. Bandonis at their “[cjourts tradi- Furthermore, general rule is that are is re- waiver the intentional adjudicate encouraged the basic tionally linquishment of a known or abandonment claim, plaintiff where the even right. Griffin, v. 799 See State law, trial, may may decline create judge the Court "[W]hereas 36. 35. "At as a matter of vindicate, otherwise, damages remedy to that, 'Bivens’ court as a reasonable district well decide rights, it would these crime victims’ him, the loss of would judge he with these before least, entitled, very they seem original part of the restitution as have ordered damages common law allowable at nominal those sentence.” loss, remedy inadequate their for added.) (Emphasis be." 610 added.)
failed to
precisely
seek the
(Emphаsis
correct relief but'
125.
See
Holt
also
Civic
has instead
general
relied on a
request
for
Tuscaloosa,
City
v.
Club
439 U.S.
of
appropriate
‘other
relief.’” Doe v. United
99 S.Ct.
58 L.Ed.2d
299
Justice,
Department
States
753 F.2d
(although
lacking
claims
substantive
merit
(D.C.Cir.1985);
1104
see also United States
dismissed,
should be
prayer
omissions in a
Marin,
(1st
Cir.1981)
v.
651 F.2d
30-31
for relief do not bar redress of meritorious
(award
damages proper
complaint
when
claims).
did
explicit prayer
not contain
damages
54(c)
“Essentially, Rule
ensures that sub-
prayer
but did contain a
for “such other and
prevail
stance will
over
form.
If
equitable”).
further relief as is
The case law
litigated by
course of the action as
upon by
relied
majority
ignore
parties
particular
shows that
relief of a
general prayer
Bandonis’
for relief is either
warranted,
scope
kind or
is
relief
inapplicable,37 contrary
weight
to the
of au-
awarded,
should
regardless
of the state
thority,38
helpful
to the Bandonis.39
pleadings.
The available
relief
However,
assuming
even
arguendo that
proof,
determined
pleadings,
not the
“boilerplate provision”
Bandonis’
duty
grant
and it is the
the court to
all
“superfluous,”
request
party
to which a
is entitled on that
relief
preclude
would not
awarding them other
Practice,
proof.”
10 Moore’s Federal
types of relief.
pleading
The failure of a
§
(Emphasis
at 54-130.
add-
54.72[l][a]
particular
demand a
kind of relief does not
ed.)
preclude
awarding
a court from
type
54(c)
contention,
contrary
majority’s
“because Rule
And
commands the
granting
any appropriate
apply only
relief.”
10 this rule does not
when a final
Practice, §
Moore’s Federal
Thus,
judgment
54.70[1] at 54-
is about
to be entered.40
Gannon,
majority's
37. The
reliance on
remedy.
kind of
Arizonans
See
at 266
for Offi
Arizona,
(Flanders, J.,
English
cial
concurring).
520 U.S.
117 S.Ct.
(1997);
611
binding upon
not be
duty
a
of relief would
as here
are under
tain kind
when
the Bandonis
supported
(1)
“any remedy
a
plain statement of
court because
to make
“a short and
Rule
may
under
be awarded
showing
pleader
the record
the claim
that the
is entitled
54(c)”
justified by
proof.
is
long as it
as
judgment
“a
for
to relief’ and
demand for
id, §
at 54-133.
54.72[lJ[c]
seeks,”
See
Super. R.
pleader
the relief the
Civ.
8(a),
question
to
P.
on defendants’ motion
I
that the Court
reasons
believe
For these
a claim whether
dismiss for failure to state
is
Bandonis
that the
no
to conclude
basis
give
the Bandonis’ claim
stated would
right to obtain whatever
their
have waived
a
any
a
them
to
may be enti-
equitable
they
form
of relief
relief
just
particular
court can award and not
Moreover,
ma-
although the
to
tled
receive.
type
Wright,
requested.
See
analysis
limit its
jority’s opinion purports
of relief
to
Practice,
Kane,
§
at
Miller &
Federal
may be entitled
crime victims
whether
Prac.,
152-54; Kent,
§
R.I.
at
Civ.
12.9
relief,
ques-
reasoning on this
monetary
any
for
event the liberal standard
that crime vic-
supports
the conclusion
12(b)(6),
reviewing complaints
Rule
at
under
remedy for
any
not entitled to
tims are
minimum, required
a
that the Bandonis be
their constitutional
alleged violations
permitted
complaint
their
in order
amend
Assembly
rights because neither the General
or,
appropriate
relief
alternative
seek
consti-
nor the drafters
ly, to
such relief into their omnibus
read
provided
expressly
amendment have
tutional
prayer
appropriate
“other
relief’ that was
for such viola-
with a cause of action
them
Doe,
complaint.
original
laid
in their
See
out
majority apparently be-
tion. Rather
ry Langlois, order. See v. Sousa stripping had the effect of the Bandonis (1964). 97 R.I. 196 A.2d ignore their victim status would be to Accordingly, because the Bandonis Legislature’s definition of a crime “victim” entitled to other forms of relief besides mon- personal injury “one who has sustained etary damages Legislature and because the directly attributable property loss of expressly declaratory-judg- has authorized of which the criminal conduct defendant actions as a ment means to obtain such re- 12-28-4.1, 12-28- charged.” been Sections lief, inap- I believe that dismissal was here 4.3. alone, propriate for this even if the reason Second, possibly Bandonis could not obtain mone- I conclude that the mere fact that However, plea tary-damages remedy. for the defendant has criminal been able reduced, previously bargain way those stated to a reasons indicated and his victimless Co., Mousseau, claim); Doire v. CommerceInsurance A.2d Chase Cf. (R.I.1997) (although plaintiffs’ (R.I. (even 1982) de- though рlaintiff’s claims for claratory-judgment have action should been inappropriate monetary were under brought statutory provi- as a direct suit under a action, declaratory-judgment cause of dismissal sion, the trial court should not dismissed improper joinder was because of claims plaintiffs action but instead allowed the permissible joinder provisions under the liberal join monetary-damages proceed claim 18). Super. Civ. R. P. providing ato trial under the statute for such a
613 Precedent charge hardly dispositive injured of 1. Rhode Island can an person’s say victim status. To that one’s today required has never Until this Court depends of victim status on the nature a private of ac- legislative creation of a cause charge charg- expedient artful or recovery would allow precondition for a as a tion pri- a ing prosecution deprivation of upon to undercut the unlawful based contrary right. theOn mary constitutionally state constitutional purpose of the state’s a cause of previously recognized that we have guaranteed hearing victim-notification directly under the Rhode lie action would Moreover, prosecu- requirements. were the a permitted and we have Constitution Island plea bargaining to have the effect of tion’s thereunder, recovery despite the monetary foreclosing any right of to vic- the Bandonis any legislative authorization absence of hear- presentencing tim notification and to a recognize cause of action such a the courts to hearing ing, then the victim-notification See, monetary e.g., relief. or to such requirements of our laws would be rendered Kingstown, 463 South Annicelli v. Town they nugatory because would vanish whenev- J, (R.I.1983); E Inc. v. Redevel A.2d 133 & negotiating prosecutorial er discretion or the Woonsocket, 122 R.I. opment Agency of savvy attorney a in a of defendant’s resulted (1979).44 Moreover, A.2d 1187 we have charge. in the criminal Such a reduction previously General Assem waited for the purpose result would contradict evident itself to bly for the State Constitution laws to such individu- afford judicial before a mechanism specify remedial greater protection very als remedial at the provisions ly enforcing state constitutional time when need it most: when See, e.g., relief. other forms of providing being criminal sentenced for his or her Department Human Avanzo v. Rhode Island attempting get as'lightly crimes and off (R.I.1993) (af rvices, Se possible plea bargain via a or a reduced firming Superior judgment declara sentence. tory injunctive deprivation relief for plaintiffs’ public-assistance benefits with process required article due of law as out Viability
B.
Constitutional
of Plaintiffs’
Rhode Island Constitu
section
Theory Recovery
Transpor
tion);
Department
v.
Pimental
(R.I.1989)
tation,
(declaring
Having
determined that the Bandonis
A.2d 608
defendants’ reli-
refusing
a
imply
decisions of this Court
Design,
of
ance on the Accent Store
Inc. line
a
monetary
to enforce
statu-
cause of action
when,
here,
decidedly misplaced
eases is
tory
provision when other remedies for
alleged.47
constitutional violation is
by
provided
Legisla-
violation were
See,
Sundlun,
e.g.,
v.
699
analysis
predicated
in this
on ture.
Pontbriand
case is
(R.I.1997);
John,
re
605 A.2d
A.2d
the existence
an affirmative constitutional
856
(R.I.1992);
expressly
Preservation
given
that is
to crime victims 486
Citizens
(R.I.
Davis,
53
merely
v.
alleged
and not
on
unex- Waterman Lake
an
but
(Citizens II).
1980)
strictly
extrapolation
Those cases deal
pressed “right”
created
party’s statutory duty.
statutory rights,
opposed
to constitu-
from another
The with
involved,
former are
Design,
in
Inc.
tional ones. Where the
statute
issue Accent Store
Legisla-
has often deferred to the
any positive right upon
not confer
this Court
did
subcontractors;
rather,
unambigu-
it
the statute is clear
plaintiff
ture when
types of
express
governmental
providing
in
for other
relief.
placed
duty
au- ous
however,
statutory rights,
constitu-
public
who
contracts
thorities
awarded
works
Unlike
People
posting
rights express
will of the
require
of a
tional
bond. Moreover
allege
litigants who
that their own constitu-
47. Because this case deals with constitutional
violated,
rights
obligations,
readily distinguish-
rights
and who
tional
have been
Design,
able from Accent Store
Inc. v. Marathon
means other
the same time have no effective
Inc.,
House,
(R.I.1996)
rights,
is thus whether the
intent inform-
(findingthat
declare as void acts
courts must
ing
particular
permit
the
statute would
repugnant to
and must nei
the Constitution
However,
cause of action.
the Davis Court
eyes
ther
on the
nor
“close their
constitution”
emphasized
analysis
the
differs when
yield
principle to
to the
allow “constitutional
constitutional
are involved because the
act”). Moreover,
unquestion
it is
Judiciary
presumed
primary
to be the
ably
Judiciary
province
to fashion
means
which
are to
constitutional
when,
here,
adequate remedy
an
there is a
be enforced. Id.
legal right
right
has been violated.
Judiciary
The bedrock role of the
in en-
liberty certainly
very
“The
of civil
essence
forcing
constitutional
also finds firm
every
in
consists
individual
support
origins
in the
of the Federal Consti-
laws,
protection
claim
whenever he
presented
tution.
Madison
When James
163;
injury.”
an
see also R.I.
receives
Id.
Rights
Congress,
Bill of
he observed:
before
(“[e]very
person
art.
within this
Const.
incorporated
ought
remedy, by
Rights
the Bill of
into
state
to find a certain
“[If
is]
constitution,
laws,
injuries
having
all
independent
tribunals of
recourse to the
for
justice
pecu- wrongs
may
per-
received in one’s
will consider themselves
which
be
character”).
son,
military’s unique disciplinary structure
property, or
the rec-
Thus
ognition
damages remedy
of а
the case at
deference
weighed
favor
(8)
bar is not
consistent with traditional
attempt
expand
Legislature,52
notions
what
it means
exercise
against whom Bivens
category of defendants
judicial power, but it
also be an abdica-
would
(to
federal
may
brought
include
actions
duty
recog-
not to
our constitutional
agencies
agents)
federal
would
well as
nize such a
claim because otherwise
Congress’s prerogative
have undermined
Bandonis
left remediless.
would be
poli-
involving
decisions
federal fiscal
make
analysis
majority
The
concludes its Bivens
cy.53
opinions
by referring to
United
several
counseling hes-
special
I discern no
factors
Supreme
subsequent
States
Court decided
damages remedy
recognizing
itation
Carlson, all of
further ex-
Davis and
which
Rights
Bill of
Act creates
here.
Victim’s
plored
pronouncement
in Bivens
Court’s
injured
for
plaintiffs right
monetary
for
no remedial mechanism
that a
sue
directly
give
under
the Constitution
government’s failure to
them
there are
could
defeated when
alternative
Although
victim
notice.
their mandated
special
counseling
remedies or
factors
hesi-
inju-
possess certain other remedies
does
Remarkably though,
majority
ne-
tation.
directly resulting from the acts constitut-
ries
glects to indicate that none of these decisions
offense,54
potential al-
ing
criminal
any applicability
to the facts of this case.
injuries
ternative remedies address
different
Recognizing
action in
the Bandonis
from the ones about which
fully
the ease at bar is
consonant with the
Compensation
complain.
or other relief
reasoning
Supreme
proffered
Court in
injuries
may have sustained as
the Bandonis
refusing to
those cases for
allow Bivens suits.
to provide
failure
result
defendants’
easily distinguishable
Indeed those eases are
opportunity
to ad-
them with notice and
presence
from
case
bar because of the
sentencing
the court before
are distinct
dress
counseling
of special
there
factors
hesitation.
separate
remedies
In sum those eases
situations in
involved
possess
original
criminal harm
(1) complex
ad-
well-considered
Thus,
al-
they suffered.
unless this Court
already
ministrative remedial schemes
exist-
the Bandonis to maintain
lawsuit
lows
provide meaningful
injured
ed to
remedies to
rights as
the violation of their constitutional
parties
Congress’s
plaintiffs,51
such as the
victims, they
are remediless and
plenary authority
military, including
over the
sentencing
to address the court before
its constitutional authorization make rules
*37
establishment,
meaningless.
governing
military
are not
unenforceable but
412,
viding
military personnel
Chilicky,
a Bivens reme
51. See Schweiker v.
487
108
enlisted
U.S.
2460,
(1988) (no
officers);
superior
dy against
S.Ct.
Second,
lack
enforcement
quate” and that its
no
article
section
contains
“major
Id.
11.
Assembly
further
sions was a
defect.”
directive to the General
enabling
pertaining
right
legislation
A historical review of the
Conven-
crime
the court before
victims
address
rights
handling of the
amend-
tion’s
victim’s
express legisla-
This lack
an
sentencing.
fact intended
ment shows that
framers
weighs heavily in
of a
tive directive
favor
rights in the
have enforceable
for victims to
portion
of article
sec-
conclusion that
adopted.
the amendment
courts after
self-executing, given
specificity
it is
majority’s
Indeed the
declaration
right
of the enumerated
and the constitution-
that the framers
the “undeniable conclusion”
history
provision.
al
intended to condition victim’s
The
criterion
third
of the self-execution
future
action is con-
upon
recourse
analysis
calls for
of the constitution
review
primary
in the
trary to
is revealed
what
history
al
of article
23. In constru
sources have examined.
amendments,
ing
have
we
rights
The
draft of the victims’
initial
primary purpose
give
to the
our
effect
86-140)60
(Resolution
expressly
amendment
Advisory Opin
intent of
framers.
In re
addition
(Ethics Commission),
included
enforcement
ion
the Governor
specific rights identified therein:
(R.I.1992).
so,
doing
by the
rights
enforceable
“These
shall be
properly
and “the
consult extrinsic sources
they
shall have recourse
victims
crime
history
A
of the times.” Id. at
close
7-8.
This
denial thereof.”
in the law for
review of
Constitutional Convention’s
lan-
including this recourse
contemporaneous documentary
re
initial
record
draft —
approval from
motivating
guage
received
that the critical
behind
veals
force
—not
Judiciary
in full
but was read
“the need
Committee61
the victims’
amendment was
They
perpetrator of the crime.
shall
extend
victims of
offenses so that
offenses).
regarding the
to address the
criminal
impact
perpetrator’s conduct
which the
shall be
the victim. These
had
Consti-
60. The initial draft was introduced to the
by the
crime and
victims of
20, 1986,
enforceable
Reso-
tutional Convention March
any denial
in the law
have recourse
shall
86-140,
Relating to Victims
lution
"A Resolution
added.)
(Emphasis
thereof."
Crimes,” and read as follows:
explanation accompanying this resolution
The
1, of the
Island Constitution
"Article
Rhode
purpose was to “enumerate
provided
entitled,
Certain
'Declaration оf
Constitutional
be afforded victims
basic
Principles’
hereby
Rights
amended
(Emphasis
renderf] those
enforceable.”
adding
following
added.)
section:
thereto
per-
24.
RIGHTS.—All
“Section
VICTIMS’
May
during
of crime
Judiciary
sons within this state who
shall,
met
Committee
right,
relating
to vic-
proposals
as a matter of
treated
three
1986 to consider
sensitivity during
phas-
including
On
dignity, respect
rights,
all
Resolution 86-140.
tims’
approved
justice
May
Judiciary
process. Whenever
Committee
es of
criminal
vote,
four
a ten to
possible,
persons
financial
Resolution 86-140
such
shall receive
subsequently
the full constitutional
compensation
injuries
referred
or losses
for their
*41
the initial draft was
language from
floor of
the-law
passed resoundingly on the full
and
substantive mean-
pas-
intended to
the
After
not
the Constitutional Convention.62
alter
by
approved
ing
86-
Resolution 86-140 as
sage on the convention floor Resolution
Judiciary
Style
by the
Committee
delegates
to the Committee on
and
140 was referred
on
Drafting,
text
altered and
referred to the Committee
and
where its
was
it was
before
language
Drafting.
noted above was
Rather when
Style
the recourse
and
presented
of the 1986
dropped. An annotated draft
86-140 was
amended Resolution
original
in the
delegation
contained
minus the
State Constitution
full constitutional
papers
language,
Convention
intro-
of the
Constitutional
its
and recourse
enforcement
(and
contemporaneously
very telling
with the Com-
dated
prefaced with
duction was
Style
Drafting’s alteration of
mittee on
and
on victim
remark: “This resolution
86-140)
alter-
Resolution
reflects
various
economy
language
was
redrafted for
indicates
ations of the committee and further
Proceedings at
as follows.”
and it now reads
Style
Drafting
added.)
and
1986).
the Committee on
(June 26,
(Emphasis
merely “clarified, language” in Resolution
passed
it
read and
was then
amendment
Resolution 86-140 was re-
86-140.63 When
Thus,
objection.
it is clear
any
without
following days to the full con-
turned in the
amended with
was not
Resolution 86-140
by the Committee
vention floor as amended
obtaining “re-
from
preclude victims
intent to
Drafting,
immediately there-
Style
on
and
any denial” of their
in the law for
course
by
passage
after
final
a vote
obtained
Rather,
the framers
evident that
rights.
it is
delegates
delegates
only after the
were
but
did so under
voting
passage
for final
style
changes
committee’s
assured
the substantive
they received that
assurance
economy
of lan-
were made
“for
they had
underlying
initial draft
meaning
Proceedings
guage.”
at Constitutional
See
prior to the
overwhelmingly
approved so
(June
1986) (Proceed-
Convention
Drafting’s altera-
Style and
on
Committee
ings).64
is,
still intact —that
tions was
by the vic-
enforceable
rights still “shall be
of the Constitutional
Thus the minutes
have recourse
shall
re-
tims of crime
reveal that
themselves
Convention
thereof.”65
the law for
denial
and recourse-in-
moval of the enforcement
great
on Rhode
Judiciary
majority places
reliance
Report
65.The
convention floor. See
Tribe,
maintain that a
cause of
applied
note
that we
inappropriate
contrary
because would be
theory
involving pe-
tion-as-evidence
to eases
Legislature’s
(motor
intent.71
see,
statutes,
nal
stat-
e.g.,,id.
vehicle
*45
violation),
as to
imposing
ute
fine for
as well
It is well established in this state that the
imposing any explicit penal sanc-
statutes not
prima
violation of a statute constitutes
facie
tion, see,
Rossi,
254,
at
e.g.,
R.I. at
7 A.2d
63
negligence.
of
evidence
evidence
This
can be
(workers’
prohibiting
compensation
775
act
used as an
of fact in
aid
trier
determi-
minors). Significantly, I
employment of
ob-
See,
negligence
e.g.,
nation of the
issue.
to
permitted plaintiffs
serve that
Desrosiers,
418,
Brodeur
422
v.
505 A.2d
proceed
negligence actions
(R.I.1986):
with common-law
264,
Bottomley,
v.
85 R.I.
Salcone
beyond
stage
they are
Ronci,
pleading
267, 129
(1957);
v.
A.2d
637
Rossi
stat-
(1939). able
the violation of such
250, 254,
to establish
R.I.
7 A.2d
775-76
63
prima facie evi-
utes. The violation becomes
states, in Rhode
Unlike some other
Island
“which,
liability,
rebutted
dence of
unless
a
is not conclusive
violation of
statute
defendant,
in favor
entitles
evidence
of
negligence,
of
does it create a
evidence
nor
rebutting
plaintiff
If such
duty
recover.
presumption of a violation of a
of care
introduced,
plaintiff
is enti-
jury
of
evidence is
finding
or relieve a
of
a breach
such
recover,
Rossi,
775-76;
if
in
of the
duty.
R.I. at
7 A.2d at
tled to
the evidence
favor
63
crime,
determining
resentencing
of their
“inform them
before
whether
would
"[ajssistance
remedy.
rights,”
appropriate
them with
be an
making
appearances
preparing
for and
statements,”
give
making
impact
victim
argue
71. The defendants also
that
are im-
s
of their
them
about
statu
"[n]otification
However,
negligence
here.
mune from a
suit
12-28-10(a).
City
Calhoun
cases." Section
public-duty
in which the
because
case
doctrine
Providence,
(1978),
120
629 Burke, 21 S.Ct. U.S. weight evi- Davis v. 179 plaintiff greater than the (1900)). Ac- 251-52 ques- dence favor of the defendant on L.Ed. Rossi, 254-55, liability.” just the absence cordingly, tion of as I conclude that R.I. nullify a crime A.2d at 776. cannot right, I hold also would victim’s The common thread these cases is rights and delineat- violation of duties that a duty running has found a equally can serve ed in our Constitution beneficiary plaintiff defendant an intended negligence. facie evidence of prima See, e.g., v. Jas vis-a-vis statute. Sitko trzebski, R.I. A.2d 178 IV (concluding in class of that child tenant was building- plaintiffs intended to benefit from Conclusion Rossi, regulations); code R.I. reasons, I Accordingly the above-stated (finding A.2d at 775 statute plain- judgment dismissing vacate the would Leg- amendment demonstrate clear intent of for further tiffs’ claims and remand case duty impose employer islature to direct on proceedings. permit not to a minor to work certain machinery). Similarly, it is clear that victims
of crime were the intended beneficiaries A APPENDIX statutory hearing provisions in notice and & of Rhode Island Provincial State Rights Bill the Victim’s Act. Two of Plantations legislative purposes of that act to treat were “dignity, respect, crime victims and sen- Providence, Sc. sitivity justice phases at all of the criminal Supreme Court process” impact to ensure “the full the eiime brought the victim BADONI, ET AL. ROBERT J. attention the court.” Section 12-28-2. Clearly when a crime victim is notified never V. *46 act,
of his or her in its enumerated the HARRALL, ALS. ROBERT C. ET Moreover, purposes central are eviscerated. just in building as the code and the Sitko APPEAL 95-0563 No. in compensation placed workers’ act Rossi REQUEST TO APPELLANTS’ respec- employers, duties landlords and ADDITIONAL CONSIDER tively, Rights places the Bill Victim’s Act ARGUMENT WRITTEN special duty an affirmative and on defendants respectfully appellants come the and Now notify in at the case bar to victims of their light questions in raised pray, of certain rights. enumerated argument as to the issue the Court oral why I see no reason the violation of remedies, the damages and/or similarly would not below, supplemental argument, stated brief negli provide the basis for a common-law considered, given to with sufficient time be First, discussed, gence previously action. as respond, they if to do appellees the desire right the constitutional under article sec so. 23, necessarily incorpоrates remedy appropriate in the is the What Rights Bill Act. and duties the Victim’s case of these instant for the vindication addition, expression will of as the rights? victim’s crime Island, People of Rhode our state’s Con authority of this preeminent statutory certainly over law. It stitution is is within remedy, an action to declare a short of constitution asserts a certain Court “[W]here damages, whereby right, lays principle of law a crime victim down a certain time, move, reopen the people procedure, speaks for entire within reasonable law, matter, authority plea and sen- supreme and is full criminal to vacate as their tence, pursuance provi enjoy and his or her constitutional all that is done in of its case, particular Shields, In this (quoting right A.2d at to be heard. sions.” reasons, an however, to maintain remedy unavailing, is For these such a state, against munici- damages action potentially dangerous. rec- should be pal and individual defendants fully 1. Mr. & Bandoni cannot be Mrs. remedy in this only viable ognized as the position time of the restored hardly a “radi- particular instance. This original sentencing. they Once lost proposition. The asked to Court cal” court, address to seek restitution sound, response to the make a measured against the judgment to have a civil entered interpre- upon a facts of this case reasonable they brought criminal and settled defendant constitution tation of the state by way their civil action for what little he had principles. Ubi application well-settled coverage, gener- of insurance executed recognition of tradi- jus, ibi remedium. right, Arguably, release. no al remedy tort/damages for this violation tional now, to seek from him without restitution serve victim’s would violating the of their terms settlement constitu- integrity of our state maintain release. with other state tion and avoid conflict time federally guaranteed until such (5) years passed 2. More than five legislature chooses to act. Once as the plea since the and sentence in this case. remedy, provide a Assembly does General Remitting Mrs. to the rem- Mr. And Bandoni rendered action such as direct would edy having reopened criminal case obsolete. poor precedent after all this sets a time traditionally recognized It is that wherever terms of that is a “reasonable” time which Ubicunque injury, there is follow. suffering future crime victims trial, est, sequitur. injuria At ibi damnum deprivation same should act. law, judge may decide matter of well Any by this now to im- that, judge as a district court reasonable undoubtedly pose such a would him, have or- would before he challenged as of the criminal defen- violative part original sen- dered restitution protections against state dant’s and federal jury, the district tence. The rather than Although jeopardy. could double this Court office, probation would determine then appropriate balance between effect appropriate amount. as a matter of fact victim’s and the criminal’s state constitutional (after and attor- By subtracting the net costs corresponding rights, there no fees) actually neys Mr. & Mrs. Bandoni rights amendment the federal constitution with the received their civil settlement *47 Fifth against criminal’s balance defendant, difference, any, if criminal result, Rhode rights. Amendment As damages. In addi- potential measure of Constitution, pro- its with additional Island tion, may to create whereas the Court decline crime, to the victims of tections afforded vindicate, remedy oth- a “Bivens” ultimately, ironically, as could be viewed erwise, rights, the loss of these crime victims’ con- right than a drier source of the.federal entitled, in the they are it would seem that stitution, thing by comparison. puny and a least, damages allow- nominal very those ultimately If the to be confronted Court is loss, for their as inade- at common law able attempting the task of to balance with be. quate as that task, certainly, conflicting rights, that should day of Respectfully this 10th submitted making. own be one of this Court’s October, 1997. traditional application 4. The BANDONI, and LORRAINE ROBERT J. tort/damages remedy against the state BANDONI, Attorney. By Their municipal is more consistent defendants judiciary, role of and well within province. It less invasive
function, responsive to merits more before the single case now Court.