Clarifying the Procedural Framework for De Novo Appeals in Rhode Island: Discovery Limits, Order of Proof, and Pro-Se Litigant Standards

Introduction

In E.H. Turf Supply Co., Inc. d/b/a Allen’s Seed v. Roger Tavares, No. 2024-314-Appeal (R.I. July 15 2025), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed procedural and evidentiary issues arising from a de novo appeal in the Superior Court following a small-claims judgment in the District Court. The matter began when E.H. Turf Supply (“Allen’s Seed”) sued customer Rogerio Tavares for stopping payment on a check given for tractor-repair services. After Allen’s Seed prevailed in the District Court, Mr. Tavares appealed to the Superior Court, where he appeared pro se. The Superior Court again entered judgment for Allen’s Seed, and Mr. Tavares brought the present appeal, alleging a host of procedural and constitutional errors.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Long, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, affirmed the Superior Court judgment of $1,703.71 against Mr. Tavares. The Court held:

The Superior Court correctly allowed Allen’s Seed to present its case first because, in a de novo trial under G.L. § 9-12-10, the plaintiff retains the burden of proof and must open and close insofar as Rule 43(f)(1) applies.
Mr. Tavares was not entitled to pre-trial discovery; Rule 81(b) expressly removes Rules 26-37 in District-Court appeals absent a showing of injustice or undue hardship, which he did not make.
The trial justice properly excluded invoices from non-testifying repair shops as inadmissible hearsay and provided Mr. Tavares ample opportunity to testify about his own experiences.
The court gave reasonable latitude to Mr. Tavares as a self-represented litigant but was not required to relax the Rules of Evidence or Civil Procedure on his behalf.
No “structural” or fundamental constitutional error occurred, and the ordinary harmless-error standard of Rule 61 did not warrant reversal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley, 68 A.3d 425 (R.I. 2013) – Reiterated the deferential “clearly erroneous” standard for factual findings of a trial justice sitting without a jury.
Pelletier v. Laureanno, 46 A.3d 28 (R.I. 2012), and Grady v. Narragansett Electric Co., 962 A.2d 34 (R.I. 2009) – Both reinforce the “substantial justice” benchmark for appellate review of bench trials.
Val-Gioia Properties, LLC v. Blamires, 18 A.3d 545 (R.I. 2011) – Clarified that an appeal under § 9-12-10 triggers a fully de novo proceeding “as if there had been no trial in the first instance.”
ADP Marshall, Inc. v. Brown University, 784 A.2d 309 (R.I. 2001) – Articulated the abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings.
Oliveira v. Levesque, 294 A.3d 994 (R.I. 2023), and Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580 (R.I. 2005) – Confirmed that pro se parties are bound by the same procedural and evidentiary rules as represented litigants.
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) – Cited by the appellant for “structural error” but distinguished by the Court as inapplicable to ordinary evidentiary or procedural complaints.

Legal Reasoning

Discovery Restrictions in De Novo Appeals
Rule 81(b) explicitly withholds civil-discovery tools (Rules 26-37) in district-court appeals unless injustice or hardship is demonstrated. Mr. Tavares neither requested relief under the proviso nor demonstrated hardship. Consequently, his “surprise witness” argument failed.
Order of Proof and Burden Allocation
Under Rule 43(f)(1), the party with the burden of proof opens and closes. Although Mr. Tavares became the “appellant,” the substantive posture remained that Allen’s Seed (plaintiff) had to prove non-payment of an admitted invoice. Hence, the trial justice correctly permitted the plaintiff to proceed first.
Evidentiary Exclusions
The excluded invoices were classic hearsay under Rule 801(c). Without a custodian or other qualified witness, they did not fall under the business-records exception (Rule 803(6)). Marking them “for identification only” preserved the record while avoiding prejudice.
Structural Error Claim Rejected
The Court declined to extend Fulminante because no categorical constitutional violation (e.g., denial of counsel, biased adjudicator) occurred. Ordinary evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless-error, not structural-error, analysis.
Treatment of Pro-Se Litigant
The record revealed the trial justice’s repeated efforts to guide Mr. Tavares—explaining foundation, permitting narrative testimony, and clarifying rulings—while still enforcing the evidentiary rules. This balanced approach met due-process expectations.

Impact of the Decision

Procedural Clarity – The Court provides authoritative guidance that, in Rhode Island, Rule 81(b) strictly curtails discovery in de novo appeals from the District Court unless a party makes the prescribed hardship showing.
Practice Tip for Litigants – Plaintiffs remain responsible for opening and closing in Superior Court regardless of who appealed. Practitioners must therefore prepare to carry the burden anew.
Standard for Pro-Se Accommodation – Trial judges are encouraged—but not required—to give explanatory assistance. The decision confirms that adherence to procedural and evidentiary rules remains paramount.
Evidentiary Gatekeeping – The ruling underscores that invoices and third-party repair records offered for their truth must satisfy a hearsay exception, reminding small-claims litigants to subpoena knowledgeable witnesses when authenticity or accuracy is at issue.
Limited Scope of “Structural Error” in Rhode Island – Absent explicit adoption, structural-error doctrine remains circumscribed, and appellants face an uphill battle invoking it for routine procedural objections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

De Novo Trial – A brand-new trial where the Superior Court disregards what happened below and hears evidence afresh.
Rule 81(b) Bar on Discovery – In small-claims appeals, typical tools like interrogatories or depositions are unavailable unless the judge grants an exception for hardship.
Hearsay – An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts; usually inadmissible unless an exception applies (e.g., business records with proper foundation).
Structural Error vs. Harmless Error – Structural errors infect the entire framework of a trial and require automatic reversal. Harmless errors are ordinary mistakes that warrant relief only if they affected the outcome.
Order of Proof – The sequence in which parties present evidence; governed by Rule 43(f)(1), assigning opening/closing to the party with the burden of persuasion.

Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision in E.H. Turf Supply v. Tavares crystallizes several procedural principles governing de novo appeals: (1) discovery remains off-limits unless a compelling hardship is shown; (2) the plaintiff retains the burden of proof and must open and close; (3) trial judges have discretion to exclude hearsay and must do so even when parties appear pro se; and (4) ordinary evidentiary or procedural disagreements do not constitute structural error. Collectively, these clarifications will guide trial courts, attorneys, and self-represented litigants in future small-claims appeals, ensuring streamlined procedure while preserving fairness and evidentiary integrity in Rhode Island’s two-tier civil-justice system.