Opinion ID: 1563092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The distinction between stipulations and agreed facts

Text: I agree with the majority that there may be a difference in the effect of stipulating to the facts that the evidence will show and submitting an agreed statement of facts. See Barnes, 354 A.2d at 505. When a party agrees to the ultimate facts, the facts are no longer in dispute and they are established as true. Id. Furthermore, when a party enters into an agreed statement of facts those facts are binding on the parties on appeal. Rhode Island Public Telecommunications Authority v. Russell, 914 A.2d 984, 990 (R.I.2007). [11] Alternatively, when a party stipulates to the facts in evidence, there is no agreement as to the ultimate facts; rather, the stipulation only pertains to what the testimony of a particular witness would be if he were testifying. Barnes, 354 A.2d at 505. The agreement is to what the evidence will be, not to what the facts are. Id. I see little foundation for the majority's assumption that Huy agreed to the facts upon which the decision of the trial justice was based. In my opinion, this is not so clear from the record. The written document entered into the record is simply entitled Stipulation. When presented with the stipulation, the trial justice, remarked, I might add for the record that the Court has held a motion to suppress in this case. The stipulated facts seem to track the evidence that came out in that hearing on that motion. Further, Huy's counsel said that these were the facts that were elicited at the suppression hearing, and that's why we agree and stipulate to that. [12] The introduction portion of the stipulation document says that the parties agree and stipulate to the following facts elicited at the [s]uppression [h]earing. Respectfully, I cannot concur with the majority's conclusion that Huy agreed to the ultimate facts. [13]