State v. Berberian
| Decision Date | 02 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 10700,10700 |
| Citation | 100 R.I. 413,216 A.2d 507 |
| Parties | STATE v. Aram K. BERBERIAN. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Corinne P. Grande, Special Counsel, for the State.
Aram K. Berberian, Providence, pro se.
This criminal complaint charges that the defendant operated a motor vehicle on Dorrance street in the city of Providence 'in violation of the Traffic Regulations of the City of Providence, to wit, did make an illegal turn into Fulton Street.' After being found guilty as charged in the district court, the defendant appealed to the superior court. There he demurred to the complaint on the grounds, first, that it alleges a conclusion without setting out supporting facts and, second, that it is duplicitous. The demurrer was overruled, and the case was tried to a justice of the superior court without the intervention of a jury. The defendant was found guilty and is now before this court prosecuting a bill of exceptions.
The state urges that defendant's contention that the court erred in overruling his demurrer is not before us, the record failing to disclose that he took any exception to that ruling. There is merit in this contention. No citation of authority is necessary to establish that the long-standing practice in this state requires counsel to show on the record that an exception was taken to any challenged ruling if it is to be reviewed by this court. The necessity for an exception of record appearing where the validity of the ruling on a demurrer is involved is clearly implied in G.L.1956, § 9-24-24.
The defendant's contention, however, is without merit, in our opinion, were the issue properly before us. The question in the instant case is whether the complaint is sufficient to inform defendant of the offense with which he is therein charged. We are not confronted with the question of constitutional infirmity arising out of the vagueness or indefiniteness with which an offense is described in the statute creating it. The law peculiarly applicable to the instant case, in our opinion, is that set out in State v. Scofield, 87 R.I. 78, 138 A.2d 415. In State v. Brown, R.I., 196 A.2d 133, we specifically noted that a defendant may, where a complaint otherwise constitutional alleges an offense in general terms, seek clarification as to the nature thereof by means of a bill of particulars as provided in § 12-12-9.
The defendant presses an exception taken to the court's overruling of his objection to an inquiry in which a witness was asked: '* * * what do you do for a living?' The record discloses a substantial discussion between the court and counsel concerning this question, the materiality of which we are unable to perceive. However, were it to be conceded that error inhered in overruling an objection to a question so obviously irrelevant to the issues in the case, we are fully persuaded that such error in no manner prejudiced defendant, and, therefore, the exception is overruled.
The defendant challenges the constitutionality of the enabling legislation, P.L.1948, chap. 2067, as an attempt to delegate power to an administrative agency without prescribing norms and standards for its exercise by that agency. He contends further that in prescribing in the ordinance creating the agency penalties for the violation of traffic regulations, the city council is acting in excess of the powers conferred upon it by the enabling act. These contentions, in our opinion, reflect a basic misconception of the nature of the enactments under consideration.
That legislation confers upon the city council in express terms power to establish a traffic engineering department, requiring the head thereof to be 'a qualified traffic engineer' appointed by the mayor subject to the approval of the city council. It further authorizes the city council to provide in the ordinance for such traffic engineer 'to make all needful rules and regulations for the regulation and control of traffic in said city' and, without limiting the general power therein conferred, specifies a number of areas in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lerner
...to seek clarification as to the nature thereof by means of a bill of particulars as provided for in said § 12-12-9. State v. Berberian, 100 R.I. 413, 216 A.2d 507 (1966). Antecedent to a decision on defendant's contention of error is the inquiry whether short-form indictments authorized for......
-
State v. Storms
...A.2d 170, 175 (1969). And in testing for the validity of that legislative action we apply a 'rule of reason,' State v. Berberian, 100 R.I. 413, 416, 216 A.2d 507, 510 (1966), and an 'intelligible principle.' J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 352, 72......
-
Three Minor Children, In re
...a bill of particulars in such circumstances is an appropriate supplement to clarify the issues for the parties. State v. Berberian, 100 R.I. 413, 415, 216 A.2d 507, 510 (1966); State v. Brown, 97 R.I. 115, 121, 196 A.2d 133, 137 We turn, then, to appellant's further contention that each pet......
-
State v. Cole, 10817
...laws * * * or ordinances of the city or town, under whose authority they respectively purport to have been published.' In State v. Berberian, 100 R.I. 413, 216 A.2d 507, we held that this statute has application to regulations promulgated pursuant to an authorization contained in an ordinan......