Doughty v. De Amoreel

• Decision Date: 27 June 1900
• Citation: 46 A. 838,22 R.I. 158
• Parties: DOUGHTY v. DE AMOREEL.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

46 A. 838

22 R.I. 158

DOUGHTY

v. DE AMOREEL.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island. .

June 27, 1900.

Exceptions from court of common pleas, Providence county.

Action by Lizzie Doughty against Joseph De Amoreel to recover double damages for a larceny. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

F. P. Owen, for plaintiff. Charles R. Easton, for defendant

STINESS, C. J.The plaintiff sues under the provisions of Gen. Laws, c. 233, § 16, to recover the double value of goods stolen. The section says: "Whenever any person shall be convicted of larceny," etc. In this case the defendant pleaded nolo contendere to an indictment for larceny, and thereupon, under Pub. Laws (January, 1899) c. 664 § 7, he was placed under the control and supervision of a probation officer. The question is whether these facts amount to a conviction. The district court held that the defendant had been convicted, and gave a decision for the plaintiff for double the value of the goods stolen. The defendant excepts to the ruling of the district court.

We think that the exception must be sustained. In the strictest sense, a conviction is not complete until it has become a judgment of the court by a sentence, since, before that time, a verdict may be set aside or a new trial granted for various causes. Com. v. Gorham, 99 Mass. 420. The term is commonly used, however, to denote the finding of fact that the accused is guilty. Barker V. Almy, 20 R. I. 367, 39 Atl. 185. It is so used in our statutes (Gen. Laws, c. 251, §§ 9, 10) where conviction is mentioned before a petition for a new trial, which operates to stay the sentence. Using the word in this sense, the district court held that the defendant had been convicted, because he could be sentenced upon his plea. But while a plea of nolo contendere may be followed by a sentence, it does not establish the fact of guilt for any other purposes than that of the case to which it applies. Doubtless, it is often used as a substitute for a plea of guilty, but it simply says that the defendant will not contend. This is not a confession of guilt, because an accused person might find himself without witnesses to establish bis innocence, from their death, absence, or other cause, and hence waive a fruitless contest. It was therefore held in State v. Conway, 20 R. I. 270, 38 Atl. 656, that a plea of nolo contendere was not a conviction, and could not be used for the purpose of discrediting a witness. See, also, Buck v. Com., 107 Pa. St. 486. The plaintiff argues, however, that the action of the court...