JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND PUBLISH AND SUBMIT TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSITION OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION -- JURY NULLIFICATION AS PROPER TRIAL DEFENSE ARGUMENT (This joint resolution would propose to the voters a constitutional amendment which would allow a criminal defendant to argue jury nullification as a defense.)
Summary
H5386 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to add a new section to Article I of the Rhode Island Constitution addressing jury nullification in criminal cases. If approved by voters, the amendment would give a criminal defendant the right to argue to the jury that it should consider not only the law and the facts, but also whether the charged law is morally repugnant, outdated, unfair, or unconstitutional. The resolution would place the question before the electorate at the next statewide general election.
The proposal also sets out the process for publication, notice, and submission of the amendment to voters, and it specifies that any approved amendment would take effect on January 1, 2027. In practical terms, the bill would not itself change criminal procedure immediately; instead, it would authorize a statewide vote on whether to expand the arguments available to defendants at trial.
Impact
If adopted by voters, the measure would amend the Rhode Island Constitution and potentially affect criminal trials by expressly recognizing jury nullification as a permissible defense argument. That could influence courtroom practice, jury instructions, and the scope of defense advocacy in criminal cases, while also raising questions about how judges would manage such arguments under existing law. Because it is a constitutional amendment proposal, its legal effect would depend on voter approval and would supersede inconsistent state law or practice to the extent of the new constitutional language.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or formal action history, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the resolution appears to be a policy proposal aimed at expanding defendant rights and inviting voters to decide a contested constitutional question. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the supplied context.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the concept of jury nullification itself. Supporters would view the amendment as protecting a defendant’s ability to argue that a law is unjust, outdated, or unconstitutional, while opponents may see it as encouraging juries to disregard the law and undermining uniform enforcement of criminal statutes. The proposal also raises institutional concerns about the role of judges versus juries, the limits of closing arguments, and whether such a right would create confusion or inconsistency in criminal trials.