Opinion ID: 1480196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Superior Court's Jurisdiction

Text: A party may raise the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time during the course of the proceedings. Pollard v. Acer Group. 870 A.2d 429, 433 (R.I.2005) (citing LaPetite Auberge, Inc. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. 419 A.2d 274, 280 (R.I.1980)). In considering a challenge to a court's subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court reviews the lower court's determination on subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. State v. Robinson, 972 A.2d 150, 157 (R.I.2009) (citing Tyre v. Swain, 946 A.2d 1189, 1197 (R.I. 2008)). [S]ubject-matter jurisdiction is `an indispensable requisite in any judicial proceeding.' Robinson, 972 A.2d at 157 (quoting Newman v. Valleywood Association's, Inc., 874 A.2d 1286, 1288 (R.I. 2005)). Subject-matter jurisdiction hinges on the allegations in the complaint, rather than what the state can prove at trial. A complaint that properly sets forth the crime charged is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. State v. DelBonis, 862 A.2d 760, 764 (R.I.2004); see also State v. Texieira, 944 A.2d 132, 139 (R.I.2008) (rejecting argument that Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a murder case because G.L.1956 § 8-2-15 undoubtedly confers jurisdiction). We have held that the [a]bsence of subject matter jurisdiction in the fundamental sense is an extreme determination when applied to a trial court of general jurisdiction. State v. Souza, 456 A.2d 775, 779 (R.I.1983) (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)). Section 8-2-15 sets forth the criminal jurisdiction of the Superior Court. It says that [t]he superior court shall have original jurisdiction of all crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors, except as otherwise provided by law. Id. This Court has held that [t]he Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction and may decide any controversy in which the state alleges the commission of a felonious crime or, indeed, any crime unless jurisdiction is conferred upon some other tribunal. Souza, 456 A.2d at 779 (citing § 8-2-15). Tower argues that the Superior Court was not vested with subject-matter jurisdiction to try him for violating a no-contact order because the no-contact order issued on P2/98-3396A expired on April 10, 2006, not sometime in 2009 as the Superior Court clerk testified. We disagree. The Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction over both felony allegations and over misdemeanor allegations unless other courts are given jurisdiction by statute. See § 8-2-15. Information No. P2/06-4337A and information No. P2/06-4296A each charged defendant with committing a felony by violating a no-contact order with respect to Maria Gois. As we held in DelBonis, 862 A.2d at 764, [s]ubject-matter jurisdiction hinges on the allegations in the complaint, rather than what the state can prove at trial. Similarly, the allegations contained in the state's informations determine whether the Superior Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a case. Here, the allegations were sufficient to invoke the Superior Court's subject-matter jurisdiction because each information alleged that defendant committed a felony. The jury's determination as to the status of the no-contact order did not impact the issue of whether the Superior Court was cloaked with subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the action. With respect to defendant's argument that he was wrongly convicted because the clerk testified inaccurately that the period of probation had not expired, we hold that this issue was waived. The validity of the no-contact order was a matter of proof at trial. The jury instructions required the jury to find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a no contact order with Maria Gois was duly issued and in effect on the dates in question and that the defendant was aware of it. [4] The jury so found, based upon the uncontradicted testimony of the Superior Court clerk. The defense neither rebutted this testimony at trial nor preserved the issue for appeal. B