Unpreserved Closing-Argument and Jury-Response Claims Are Waived: Rhode Island Reaffirms Contemporaneous-Objection and Adequate-Briefing Requirements

1. Introduction

In Alexandria Kazarian v. New London County Mutual Insurance Company et al. (R.I. Mar. 14, 2025), the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in a negligence trip-and-fall case arising near 38 Gordon Street in Cranston. The plaintiff, Alexandria Kazarian, alleged she was forced off the sidewalk by a vehicle parked on the sidewalk in front of Irene Swiney’s property and then tripped in the street on an “unsecured gas cap,” suffering a broken fibula. After Ms. Swiney died, the plaintiff substituted Swiney’s insurer, New London County Mutual Insurance Company, as the trial defendant; all other defendants were dismissed before trial.

The appeal focused less on the underlying premises/sidewalk negligence theory and more on standards of review and issue preservation: (i) whether the trial justice should have granted judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50; (ii) whether a new trial was required under Rule 59 due to alleged improper closing argument and “grass growth” commentary; and (iii) whether the trial justice’s mid-deliberation response referencing a “redacted” deposition transcript warranted relief.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgment for the defendant and the denial of the plaintiff’s renewed Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions. The Court held:

  • Rule 50 (judgment as a matter of law): credibility disputes, photographic inconsistencies, and competing inferences meant “reasonable minds could disagree” on whether the vehicle obstructed the sidewalk on the day of the fall and whether any obstruction was reasonable/necessary; thus, the issue was properly left to the jury.
  • Rule 59 (new trial): the trial justice performed the required “super juror” analysis and was not clearly wrong.
  • Closing argument / “golden rule”: even assuming the argument could be characterized as “golden rule,” the plaintiff did not contemporaneously object or request a cautionary instruction, so the claim was not preserved.
  • “Grass growth” argument: no objection was made at trial; the claim was waived.
  • Judge’s “redacted” comment to jury: no contemporaneous objection and no meaningful legal development on appeal; the issue was deemed waived.

Notably, the Court reiterated that Rhode Island has not adopted the “golden rule” doctrine, and it declined to reach any such doctrinal question because the issue was unpreserved.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1) Rule 50 standard (de novo review; jury’s role when evidence conflicts)

  • Dextraze v. Bernard, 253 A.3d 411 (R.I. 2021): supplied the governing framework: appellate review of a denial of judgment as a matter of law is de novo, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, and without weighing credibility. The Court used Dextraze to emphasize that credibility concerns (including the plaintiff’s equivocation about photographs) foreclose Rule 50 relief.
  • Gianquitti v. Atwood Medical Associates, Ltd., 973 A.2d 580 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Lutz Engineering Company v. Industrial Louvers, Inc., 585 A.2d 631 (R.I. 1991)): reiterated that if evidence supports the nonmoving party or reasonable minds can differ, the case must go to the jury. The Court used these cases to confirm that conflicting inferences about whether a car blocked the sidewalk and whether the plaintiff’s account was reliable belonged to the factfinder.

2) Sidewalk obstruction and the “reasonableness/necessity” fact question

  • Brey v. Rosenfeld, 72 R.I. 28, 48 A.2d 177 (1946): the plaintiff invoked Brey to argue that ordinance violations and obstruction established negligence. The Court treated Brey as cutting against a per se approach in this context, quoting its core point: “Ordinarily, whether defendant was temporarily making a reasonable and necessary use of the sidewalk is a question of fact….” That framing supported the Court’s conclusion that the jury—rather than the judge on Rule 50—was the proper arbiter.

3) Rule 59 new-trial standard (“super juror” and deference on appeal)

  • Dextraze v. Bernard, 253 A.3d 411 (R.I. 2021): provided the “super juror” articulation and the “evenly balanced/reasonable minds could differ” constraint.
  • Zarembka v. Whelan, 176 A.3d 485 (R.I. 2018) (quoting Bitgood v. Greene, 108 A.3d 1023 (R.I. 2015)): established the appellate deference standard—affirm if the trial justice applied the correct analysis, did not overlook/misconceive evidence, and was not clearly wrong.
  • Letizio v. Ritacco, 204 A.3d 597 (R.I. 2019): reinforced the trial justice’s independent appraisal obligation and the “reasonable minds could differ” limitation.

4) Preservation of claims of counsel misconduct and other legal error

  • Peloso v. Imperatore, 107 R.I. 47, 264 A.2d 901 (1970): did the decisive work on multiple issues. The Court relied on Peloso for the proposition that alleged misconduct of counsel before the jury raises a question of law that is reviewable only if an objection is made and a ruling is obtained. Because the plaintiff did not object to the purported “golden rule” statement or to the “grass growth” argument, both complaints were waived.
  • State v. Belen, 220 A.3d 1224 (R.I. 2019): was cited not to adopt the “golden rule” doctrine, but to describe how Connecticut defines it: a golden rule argument “urges jurors to put themselves in a particular party’s place or into a particular party’s shoes.” The Court then expressly noted it has “not had occasion to decide whether to adopt” the doctrine—sidestepping the substantive question due to lack of preservation.
  • Broccoli v. Manning, 208 A.3d 1146 (R.I. 2019): was invoked to dispose of the “redacted transcript” claim on appeal for inadequate development: absent meaningful discussion and supporting authority, the argument is deemed waived.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Rule 50: why “uncontradicted” proof still failed

The plaintiff framed her evidence as “uncontradicted” that Ms. Swiney knew of sidewalk parking and that there was no necessity. The Court’s analysis shows how Rule 50 collapses that characterization into the operative question: could reasonable jurors, drawing inferences for the nonmoving party, reject the plaintiff’s narrative?

The answer was yes, because the record contained: (i) equivocation about which photos were taken on the accident date; (ii) cross-examination exposing discrepancies in prior statements; and (iii) photographic contrasts (weather/wetness and shrubbery appearance) supporting the defense’s suggestion that key photographs were not from the alleged date. These were not side issues: they went to whether the sidewalk was actually blocked when the fall occurred and to the reliability of the plaintiff’s account.

The Court also used Brey v. Rosenfeld to reinforce that, even if obstruction occurred, the reasonableness and necessity of sidewalk use is “ordinarily” a fact question. This undermined the plaintiff’s attempt to convert ordinance-related facts into a judge-decided finding of negligence.

2) Rule 59: trial justice’s “super juror” appraisal and credibility finding

Applying Dextraze, Zarembka, Bitgood, and Letizio, the Court reviewed whether the trial justice: (i) independently assessed the evidence; (ii) respected the jury’s province where evidence was balanced; and (iii) avoided overlooking or misconceiving material evidence. The trial justice explicitly questioned the plaintiff’s credibility and stated he would have reached the same result as the jury, satisfying the “super juror” function.

3) Preservation as the gatekeeper (golden rule, “grass growth,” and “redacted”)

The decisive doctrinal move in the latter half of the opinion is procedural: without a contemporaneous objection (and a ruling), appellate review is unavailable. The Court treated both the alleged golden-rule statement and the “grass growth” argument as waived under Peloso.

The “redacted” issue combined two waiver rationales: (i) no contemporaneous objection when the trial justice used the word “redacted,” and (ii) on appeal, the plaintiff provided no supporting authority and no meaningful explanation of judicial error, triggering waiver under Broccoli v. Manning.

Importantly, the Court’s approach also avoided issuing an advisory ruling on the golden rule doctrine. By noting—then not deciding—whether Rhode Island adopts the golden rule, the Court preserved doctrinal flexibility while reinforcing the practical necessity of timely objections.

C. Impact

  • Trial practice in Rhode Island: The decision is a clear warning that perceived improprieties in closing argument must be met with immediate objection and, when appropriate, a request for a curative instruction. Post-verdict motions and appellate briefing cannot substitute for preservation at the moment the issue arises.
  • “Golden rule” in Rhode Island remains unsettled: The Court again stated it has not adopted the doctrine. Practically, litigants should assume the issue will be decided, if at all, only on a properly preserved record.
  • Photographs and impeachment themes: The Court’s Rule 50 analysis shows that when photographic evidence, dates, and cross-examination create credibility disputes, plaintiffs face a steep climb in arguing the evidence is “uncontradicted” for dispositive relief.
  • Jury questions during deliberations: Complaints about a judge’s response (even arguably confusing phrasing) must be raised immediately to give the trial justice a chance to clarify or cure.
  • Appellate briefing discipline: Broccoli v. Manning is leveraged to enforce the requirement that arguments be supported by authority and meaningful analysis; otherwise, they are waived—even if the underlying concern seems intuitively plausible.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50)
A request for the judge to take the case away from the jury because no reasonable juror could find for the other side when the evidence is viewed in that other side’s favor.
New trial (Rule 59) and the “super juror”
The trial justice independently weighs evidence and credibility (unlike Rule 50), but must still respect the jury’s verdict if the evidence is fairly balanced or reasonable minds could differ.
“Golden rule” argument
A closing-argument technique that asks jurors to place themselves in a party’s position (e.g., “imagine it was your house”). Rhode Island has not adopted a specific “golden rule doctrine,” but the key point here is procedural: even if improper, it must be met with a timely objection to preserve the issue.
Waiver / preservation
If counsel does not object at the time an alleged error occurs and obtain a ruling, appellate courts generally will not review it. Separately, even preserved issues can be treated as waived on appeal if not supported by authority and meaningful analysis.
Respondeat superior / master-servant
A doctrine that can make one person/entity liable for another’s acts when a servant/employee acts within the scope of service. The plaintiff invoked it to attribute the parker’s conduct to the homeowner, though the appeal ultimately turned on factual disputes and preservation failures rather than a definitive ruling on that theory.
“Redacted” transcript
A transcript edited to remove inadmissible or excluded parts. The jury asked for the deposition transcript; the judge explained that only portions had been read and a redacted set was not available. The Supreme Court did not reach prejudice because the plaintiff neither objected contemporaneously nor adequately developed the issue with authority on appeal.

5. Conclusion

Kazarian is a procedural, trial-practice-focused decision with a straightforward message: credibility disputes and competing inferences belong to the jury under Rule 50; new-trial rulings receive deference when the trial justice performs the required “super juror” analysis; and, most importantly, alleged errors tied to closing argument and jury communications are generally unreviewable without a contemporaneous objection and an adequately developed appellate argument. The opinion also preserves Rhode Island’s unsettled stance on the “golden rule” doctrine by declining to address it absent preservation, ensuring that any future adoption or rejection will occur on a properly framed record.