State v. Amaral, No. 6173.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
| Writing for the Court | SWEETLAND, C. J. |
| Citation | 132 A. 547 |
| Parties | STATE v. AMARAL. |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 6173. |
STATE
v.
AMARAL.
No. 6173.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
March 18, 1926.
Proceeding between the State and Anthony J. Amaral. On motion to establish truth of exceptions. Order in accordance with opinion.
Charles P. Sisson, of Providence (George Hurley, of Providence, of counsel), for the State.
Walter I. Sundlun and William G. Troy, both of Providence, for defendant.
SWEETLAND, C. J. The case is before us upon the respondent's motion to establish the truth of exceptions alleged to have been taken by him at the trial of the above-entitled indictment before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury. The respondent duly filed his bill of exceptions in the superior court. Some of the exceptions stated in the bill were allowed, two were disallowed, and a number were altered by the justice.
A determination of the motion involves a consideration of proper practice in the statement of exceptions, in accordance with the statute and the decisions of this court, and the relative duties of a justice of the superior court in passing upon the truth of exceptions stated in a bill, and of this court in passing upon their validity. In a number of reported and unreported cases we have declared that the statutory requirement that a bill of exceptions shall state separately and clearly the exceptions relied upon is met by a formal enumeration of the exceptions; that an exception to a ruling made in the course of a trial and appearing in the transcript is best stated by an exact reference to the place in the transcript where the ruling appears, and also the place where the exception is noted; and that such statement is concerned only with the truth of the exception—i. e., the fact that it was duly taken— and not at all with the claim of the party excepting as to the validity of the exception, or as to its scope and effect. Such claims should not be made a part of the bill, and are not for the consideration of a justice of the superior court when the bill is presented to him for allowance, but are matters to be urged to this court at a hearing upon the merits of the exception. Blake v. Atlantic National Bank, 80 A. 181, 33 R. I. 109; Dunn Worsted Mills v. Allendale Mills, SO A. 591, 33 R. I. 115; Beaule v. Acme Finishing Co., 89 A. 73, 36 R. I. 74 at 76; Nichols v. Mason & Co., 115 A. 113, 44 R. I. 43; Bannon v. Bannon, 119 A. 56, 44 R. I. 468; Fainardi v. Pausata, 123 A. 689, 45 R. I. 462.
The respondent's bill of exceptions, as presented to the justice for allowance, offended in many particulars against the rules of practice referred to above. We would recommend to counsel that in the future, for their own convenience and for the convenience of the justice to whom a bill of exceptions is presented for allowance, they will adopt the simple method of stating exceptions which has been suggested in the opinions cited above. We will consider as established as true the exceptions allowed by the justice in the form in which they were presented to him, although in some instances their statement is not in accord with the practice recommended by this court.
The statements of exceptions 35 and 104 were altered to correct clerical mistakes occurring
therein. These mistakes relate to the numbers of the questions appearing on certain pages of the transcript. Exception 35, as allowed by the justice, still contains a clerical mistake. The exception is noted on page 627 of the transcript, and not on page 527. As thus corrected, the allowance of these exceptions is approved.
The justice altered the statements of exceptions 24, 25, 61, and 73 in the bill. Each of these statements presents the same question. In each case, on the face of the transcript, it appears that an exception was noted to a ruling of the justice permitting the introduction of certain testimony. In his bill of exceptions the respondent claims in each case that the scope of the exception noted in the transcript covered objections to the admission of other testimony to which exception was not specifically noted, and that the effect of the exceptions was to permit the review by this court of the admission of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ahmadjian, Nos. 77-129-C
...strike. State v. Dettore, 104 R.I. 535, 247 A.2d 87 (1968); State v. Rooks, 62 R.I. 251, 4 A.2d 905 (1939); State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 132 A. 547 We next consider whether or not the defendants' failure to comply with this procedural rule, the motion to strike, can foreclose review of an ......
-
State v. Nelson, No. 2007-323-C.A.
...jury trial to interrogate a witness as to relevant matters proper to be presented to the jury." State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 249-50, 132 A. 547, 549 (1926). It should be noted that in Amaral the Court was quick to add that the judge should do so with "caution" and that he or......
-
State v. McVeigh, No. 94-116-C
...proper to be presented to the jury.' " State v. Figueras, 644 A.2d 291, 293 (R.I.1994) (quoting State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 249-50, 132 A. 547, 549 (1926)). See also State v. Fenik, 45 R.I. 309, 121 A. 218 (1923) (it is the court's duty to exercise scrupulous care to avoid influencin......
-
State v. Quattrocchi, No. 10849
...exception must relate to a specific ruling or decision. A blanket or a general exception will not suffice. State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 132 A. 547; State v. Braica, 78 R.I. 32, 78 A.2d 374; State v. Mastracchio, 78 R.I. 496, 82 A.2d 889; State v. Ruggiero, 93 R.I. 241, 174 A.2d 555. Here, ......
-
State v. Ahmadjian, Nos. 77-129-C
...strike. State v. Dettore, 104 R.I. 535, 247 A.2d 87 (1968); State v. Rooks, 62 R.I. 251, 4 A.2d 905 (1939); State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 132 A. 547 We next consider whether or not the defendants' failure to comply with this procedural rule, the motion to strike, can foreclose review of an ......
-
State v. Nelson, No. 2007-323-C.A.
...jury trial to interrogate a witness as to relevant matters proper to be presented to the jury." State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 249-50, 132 A. 547, 549 (1926). It should be noted that in Amaral the Court was quick to add that the judge should do so with "caution" and that he or......
-
State v. McVeigh, No. 94-116-C
...proper to be presented to the jury.' " State v. Figueras, 644 A.2d 291, 293 (R.I.1994) (quoting State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 249-50, 132 A. 547, 549 (1926)). See also State v. Fenik, 45 R.I. 309, 121 A. 218 (1923) (it is the court's duty to exercise scrupulous care to avoid influencin......
-
State v. Quattrocchi, No. 10849
...exception must relate to a specific ruling or decision. A blanket or a general exception will not suffice. State v. Amaral, 47 R.I. 245, 132 A. 547; State v. Braica, 78 R.I. 32, 78 A.2d 374; State v. Mastracchio, 78 R.I. 496, 82 A.2d 889; State v. Ruggiero, 93 R.I. 241, 174 A.2d 555. Here, ......