Ex parte Deslovers
| Decision Date | 17 April 1913 |
| Parties | Ex parte DESLOVERS. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
On Motion for Reargument May 1, 1913.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus by Henri Deslovers for his discharge from imprisonment. Writ directed.
Archambault & Jalbert, of Woonsocket, and John J. Fitzgerald, of Providence, for petitioner.
Herbert A. Rice, Atty. Gen., A. A. Capotosto, Third Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
VINCENT, J. Eugene L. Jalbert, of Woonsocket, county of Providence, state of Rhode Island, in behalf of one Henri Deslovers, of said Woonsocket, has filed in this court a petition for habeas corpus, setting forth that the said Henri Deslovers is imprisoned and unjustly and unlawfully deprived of his personal liberty and held in custody at Howard, in said county and state, by Aimer J. Davis, or some other person as his keeper, the warden of our state prison; that said Henri Deslovers on, to wit, the 16th day of September, A. D. 1912, was indicted by the grand jury of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, said indictment charging him with the crime of murder; that on, to wit, the 7th day of October, A. D. 1912, the said Henri Deslovers pleaded not guilty to the indictment, and was thereupon committed to jail without bail by order of the superior court; that said Henri Deslovers has been confined in jail ever since on or about the 30th day of June, A. D. 1912, and that during the entire period aforesaid the said Henri Deslovers was not tried or admitted to bail; that in compliance with section 17 of chapter 354 of the General Laws of Rhode Island of 1909, the said Henri Deslovers at different times, to wit, on the 15th day of February, A. D. 1913, by a motion filed in the superior court, and on the 22d day of March, A. D. 1913, by a formal demand in writing to the Attorney General, demanded that he be given a trial; that said demand for a trial was denied the said Henri Deslovers both by the superior court and the Attorney General, and a trial was postponed beyond the statutory period provided for in said section 17 of chapter 354; that the postponement of said trial beyond the aforesaid statutory period is a gross injustice to the said Henri Deslovers, in that certain testimony greatly needed by him will not be available on any subsequent day to which said trial may be assigned.
Section 17 of chapter 354 has reference to certain crimes, including treason against the state, murder, robbery, rape, arson, and burglary, and is as follows: It is claimed that the said Henri Deslovers, not having been admitted to bail and having been deprived of his liberty for a period of more than six months following his plea to the indictment, is now illegally held, and is entitled to his discharge; he having demanded a trial within the six months following his plea to the indictment, and he not being further detained on the ground that some material witness in behalf of the state has been enticed away or is prevented from attending court by some unavoidable accident.
1913, February 10, 1913, and April 21, 1913; the last day of assignment being after the expiration of the period of six months from the time of the plea to the indictment.
It appears that one, at least, of the earlier assignments, was vacated, and a new assignment made, at the request of the said Deslovers, but that the assignment of February 10, 1913, was vacated against the protest of Deslovers, who two days later moved the court, in writing, to assign his case for trial, which said motion was denied by the superior court. The said Deslovers, through his counsel, also addressed a letter to the Attorney General, March 22, 1913, calling the latter's attention to his said motion for a trial, which had been denied, and requesting a trial within the statutory period. The said motion of Deslovers for the assignment of his case for trial was tiled on February 12, 1913, or more than seven weeks prior to the expiration of a period of six months following his plea to the indictment.
The court naturally feels that a person indicted for so grave and repulsive a crime should not be permitted to go free without a trial, if his trial could be secured according to law. The court, however, in disposing of the question before it, is constrained by and must consider the terms of the statute referred to and the intention of the Legislature in its enactment.
The Constitution provides that those accused of crime shall have a speedy trial, and the statute in question was undoubtedly framed in furtherance of that constitutional provision. The statute seems to us to mean that any person accused of either of the crimes enumerated shall, if he demand a trial, be tried within six months from the time that he pleads to the indictment, unless in the meantime such person should be admitted to bail, or unless some witness in behalf of the state should have been enticed away or prevented from attending court by unavoidable accident.
We think that the protest of Deslovers regarding the vacation of the assignment of February 10, 1913, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsdell v. Langlois
...is a qualified one which is waived unless an accused asserts his right to it. Orabona v. Linscott, 49 R.I. 443, 144 A. 52; In re Deslovers, 35 R.I. 248, 86 A. 657; State v. Boynton, 143 Me. 313, 62 A.2d 182; Tutt v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 199 Md. 691, 87 A.2d 523; State v. Smith, 10 N.......
-
State v. Deslovers
...defendant's exceptions sustained, and case remitted to the superior court, with direction to give defendant new trial. See, also, 35 R. I. 248, 256, 86 Atl. 657. Herbert A. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Antonio A. Capotosto, Ass't Atty. Gen. (Zechariah Chafee, Jr., of Providence, of counsel), for t......
-
Genereux v. Pelosi
...to the federal constitution. The constitutional safeguard of art. I, § 10, was given concrete form and force by § 12-13-7. In re Deslovers, 35 R.I. 248, 86 A. 657. Our holding that the words 'Every person' in § 12-13-7 were not intended by the legislature to include one in the special circu......
-
Marzilli v. Howard
...it. Ramsdell v. Langlois,100 R.I. 468, 471, 217 A.2d 83, 86; Orabona v. Linscott, 49 R.I. 443, 445, 144 A. 52, 53; In re Deslovers, 35 R.I. 248, 251, 86 A. 657, 658, aff'd on rehearing, 35 R.I. 256, 86 A. 659. Another makes the right dependent on whether any undue delay in granting the requ......