State v. Chin Ting
| Decision Date | 07 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 6104.,6104. |
| Citation | 136 A. 8 |
| Parties | STATE v. CHIN TING. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Charles A. Walsh, Judge.
Chin Ting was found guilty of murder, was denied a new trial, and brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted.
Oscar L. Heltzen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Benjamin M, McLyman, Second Asst. Atty. Gen., both of Providence, for the State.
Thomas Curran and William G. Troy, both of Providence, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted for the murder of one Chin Moon. The trial took six days and resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Defendant's petition in the superior court for a new trial was denied. The case is in this court on his bill of exceptions.
Although numerous exceptions were taken by defendant during the trial, no exception was taken to the charge to the jury. The main claim now made is that the verdict was against the evidence. In support of such of the exceptions as have been referred to by counsel either in their brief or in oral argument, no legal authority is cited in any instance.
The defendant and Chin Moon came to this country from the same village in China and had lived here for a number of years. It is apparent from the record that defendant understood the English language quite well and was able to speak it fairly well. Chin Moon was the proprietor of a Chinese restaurant, located on the second floor of a building on Weybosset street in Providence. The defendant and a young English woman were employed as waiters in this restaurant. On Sunday morning, February 22, 1023, about 11 a. m., the police were notified by a local Chinaman, who had gone to call on Chin Moon in his restaurant, that some one had killed Chin Moon. The police at once went to the restaurant and there found the dead and mutilated body of Chin Moon lying on the floor near the entrance door of the front room; after passing through swing doors from this room into the kitchen in the rear, the police found the defendant wounded and lying on the floor. The entrance to the restaurant from the street was by marble stairs, thence by a short hallway to the right through swinging doors into the main part of the restaurant. In the restaurant to the left was a counter with a cash register and some office furniture. Chin Moon lived in the restaurant and slept on a couch or shelf behind the counter. The two waiters usually worked until 10 o'clock at night. The custom of the defendant was to leave then, and go to his room in a house on Aborn street. At 8:30 in the morning defendant was accustomed to unlock the outer door of the restaurant on the second floor, proceed to the kitchen in the rear and make preparation for the luncheon trade which began shortly before the noon hour. The waitress seldom worked on Sunday. Chin Moon owed the defendant over $500 for back wages. This debt was the cause of bad feeling between defendant and his employer. There is evidence that the restaurant, which was not successful, was to be closed on the day following the murder; that defendant had asked Chin Moon for his back pay and had threatened to get even with him unless he was paid: that for several weeks prior to this time there was increasing friction between defendant and Chin Moon and their relations were unfriendly; the waitress testified that defendant had threatened to kill Chin Moon and had shown his hostility to him, by quarreling with him, by making faces and gnashing his teeth, and by other manifestations of ill will at different times when the two were together; that the two men were quarreling when she left the restaurant on Saturday night. No witness saw the crime committed, and the evidence is largely circumstantial. As defendant is a foreigner, and to some extent at least possibly may have had some difficulty in the easy statement of his defense, the record has been examined with particularity and without strict regard to the exceptions only. The defendant was represented by two counsel of long experience and his defense was fully presented to the jury. The charge to the jury was impartial and the distinctions between the different degrees of homicide were clearly defined. That the jury gave careful consideration to the evidence is apparent from the fact that, having considered the case for some time, they returned to the court room and requested and received further instructions in regard to the distinctions in the degrees of murder.
In his rescript the trial justice states that he has reviewed the evidence from his own notes and has given the case careful consideration; that, in his opinion, the defendant had a fair trial and the jury weighed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anthony, 78-360-C
...States v. Alvarez-Lopez, 559 F.2d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 1977). Accord, State v. Bennett, R.I., 405 A.2d 1181, 1183 (1979); State v. Chin Ting, R.I., 136 A. 8, 10 (1927). Even though no obligation is imposed upon the court to protect the witness from being discredited by revealing his motivat......
-
State v. Miller, 7145.
...and premeditated; but they were not bound so to find. See State v. Fenik, 45 R. I. 309, 121 A. 218; 30 C. J. p. 404, § 650; State v. Chin Ting (R. I.) 136 A. 8. The killing was not in perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, burglary, or robbery. A killing in the perpetra......
-
State v. Albee
...excluded merely because it may have a tendency to cause an influence beyond the strict limits for which it is admissible. State v. Chin Ting [R.I., 136 A. 8], supra; Commonwealth v. Retkovitz, 222 Mass. 245, 110 N.E. 293; Underhill's Criminal Evidence (3d Ed.) § 103, and cases cited.' State......