State v. Abbott
| Decision Date | 11 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-63-C,74-63-C |
| Citation | 322 A.2d 33,113 R.I. 430 |
| Parties | STATE v. John ABBOTT and Richard E. Freeman. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
These are two motions for release on bail pending appeals made pursuant to Rule 9 of our rules. We granted these motions. This opinion sets forth the rationale of our order.
A Superior Court jury found the defendants guilty of rape and kidnapping. 1 They were sentenced to serve the minimum statutory punishment-10 years at the Adult Correctional Institutions. A justice of the Superior Court denied their requests for bail pending their appeals. He based his denial on the nature of the offense, saying that rape is a crime of violence. He also alluded to our state constitution which bars bail in cases involving a capital crime where 'proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great.' (Article I, sec. 9.) The trial justice stressed that if it is possible to deny pretrial bail on an indictment charging rape, the policy of no post conviction bail is 'no less warranted' or 'no less justified.' We cannot agree with this conclusion.
The trial justice found as fact that prior to their present difficulties defendants had worked hard and gained the trust and confidence of their employers. He specifically commented on the stable relationship that had existed between defendants and their wives and children. Prior to the jury's verdict, defendants had been free on bail and at all times appeared in court as scheduled, even on the day when they knew they would receive at least 10- year jail sentences. The trial justice also stated that their only encounter with the law involved the charges arising from the incident which resulted in their conviction.
Notwithstanding the 'proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great' provision of art. I, sec. 9, the granting of post conviction bail is a matter which is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Quattrocchi v. Langlois, 100 R.I. 741, 219 A.2d 570 (1966). In granting post conviction bail, in State v. Murphy, 111 R.I. 921, 302 A.2d 808 (1973), we did indeed remark that jury tampering was not a crime of violence. However, we did not intend to imply that a trial court conviction of a crime of violence would be an automatic bar to the granting of post conviction bail. Rather, admission to bail presents the trial justice with a many faceted issue. The primary purpose of bail, be it of the pretrial or the post conviction variety, is to assure a defendant's appearance in court at the appointed time.
Having in mind the natural reluctance to incarcerate a person prior to final conviction, we take this opportunity to delineate some of the elements that should be evaluated when release on bail during the pendency of an appeal is sought in the trial court. Consideration should be given to (1) whether the appeal is taken for delay or in good faith on grounds not frivolous but fairly debatable; (2) the habits of the individual regarding respect for the law insofar as they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Feng, 77-274-M
...(1966), we have designated bail pending direct appeal as a matter in the trial court's sound discretion. Id. In State v. Abbott, 113 R.I. 430, 322 A.2d 33 (1974) (Abbott I), we set guidelines for the trial court to follow when it assesses applications for bail pending direct appeal. Feng re......
-
State v. Ford
...the Court then determined whether release was appropriate under these circumstances. At argument, both parties agreed that Abbott v. Freeman, 322 A.2d 33 (R.I. 1974) Feng were controlling regarding the factors to be considered in granting release to the Defendant. In Abbott, our Supreme Cou......
-
State v. Reis
...the Court then determined whether release was appropriate under these circumstances. At argument, both parties agreed that Abbott v. Freeman, 322 A.2d 33 (R.I. 1974) Feng were controlling regarding the factors to be considered in granting release to the Defendant. In Abbott, our Supreme Cou......
-
State v. Ford, C.A. No. P2-05-0083A
...the Court then determined whether release was appropriate under these circumstances. At argument, both parties agreed that Abbott v. Freeman, 322 A.2d 33 (R.I. 1974) and Feng were controlling regarding the factors to be considered in granting release to the Defendant. In Abbott, our Supreme......