State v. Clarke, 80-499-C
| Decision Date | 26 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-499-C,80-499-C |
| Citation | 448 A.2d 1208 |
| Parties | STATE v. John H. CLARKE. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on the defendant's appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court of murder in the second degree. The defendant has raised a number of issues in support of his appeal, including the assertion that the trial justice erred in denying a motion to sever the defendant's case from that of two codefendants. We find that the trial justice committed reversible error in denying severance, and therefore we vacate the defendant's conviction. Our disposition of the severance issue makes it unnecessary to reach the defendant's other assertions of error.
The murder of Dennis Grundy occurred on the rainy evening of January 13, 1979. Early that evening James and Arthur Grundy, both brothers of the deceased, Patricia Grundy, the wife of the deceased, and Karen Cochrane, the sister-in-law of the deceased, were socializing at the home of Dennis Grundy. Dennis and Patricia Grundy decided that they wanted two parked automobiles removed from their property and had Karen Cochrane telephone the man responsible for placing the cars there. The responsible party was defendant John Clarke. He arrived at the Grundy residence at approximately 7:30 p. m., accompanied by Abel Tavares and George Matera. Clarke had recently recovered from pneumonia and was angry about having to remove the vehicles in the course of a rainstorm.
Clarke started one of the cars and left the Grundy premises followed by Tavares and Matera. About an hour and a half later the three returned for the second car. Clarke, Tavares, and Matera entered the Grundy home, Clarke obtained a coat hanger with which to start the car, and the three men returned into the night. Dennis Grundy went out after Clarke, apparently "to tell him no hard feelings."
Some minutes later Karen Cochrane looked outside to see what Dennis was doing. She found her brother-in-law lying in the driveway with John Clarke on top of him. Karen ran to get the others after Clarke ordered her back into the house. Arthur Grundy testified that he was the first person out the door. Arthur stated that as he came out of the house he saw Dennis on his knees supported by John Clarke, who was in front of Dennis holding him by the arms. Abel Tavares was immediately behind Dennis and apparently punched him twice. Arthur Grundy testified that when he got close to the three men, he saw that Tavares held an ice pick in his hand.
After a brief altercation several persons carried Dennis into the house. He bled from the nose and mouth and was unconscious. Removal of his shirt revealed five puncture wounds in his chest, side, and stomach. Clarke, Tavares, and Matera fled before the rescue squad and police arrived.
The state charged and tried Clarke, Tavares, and Matera jointly for the murder of Dennis Grundy. Before trial the public defender representing Clarke moved to sever his trial on various Sixth Amendment grounds. The trial justice denied the motion. Clarke's attorney renewed the motion to sever during the trial after Abel Tavares testified in his own defense. Tavares testified that he waited in Matera's car while Clarke went to start the second automobile. After fifteen or twenty minutes, Tavares stated, he got out of the car to see what was keeping Clarke. Tavares asserted that as he walked up the driveway, "I seen Johnny Clarke stab Dennis Grundy about 4 or 5 times in the stomach" with what "looked like an ice pick to me." Tavares denied any involvement in the stabbing. Despite this testimony the trial justice again denied defendant's motion to sever. Defendant John Clarke did not testify in his own defense.
In State v. Gibbons, R.I., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Cordeiro
...that he was, therefore, unfairly prejudiced by being forced to defend against his codefendant as well as the prosecution. State v. Clarke, 448 A.2d 1208 (R.I.1982). The judge found, based upon substantial evidence, that Raposo's defense was also, at least partially, one of consent. 15 We as......
-
People v. Bean
...jointly with another is sufficient to require a separate trial. [Citation.]" 363 Ill. 551, 557, 2 N.E.2d 839. See also State v. Clarke (R.I.1982), 448 A.2d 1208, 1210. In this case, the People stood by while Byron's attorney tried repeatedly, in his opening statement, in his cross-examinati......
-
State v. Cassey
...no significant difficulty in separating out the evidence against each defendant. There were no antagonistic defenses. See State v. Clarke, 448 A.2d 1208 (R.I.1982). Cassey testified, and Gilbert did not. In her testimony Cassey denied any knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of Neither defen......
-
State v. Viveiros
... ... State v. Clarke, 448 A.2d 1208, 1209 (R.I.1982) (quoting Gibbons, 418 A.2d at 835). Whether the defendant has shown that he [or she] has suffered substantial ... ...