State v. Costantino, 1008-M
| Decision Date | 11 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1008-M,1008-M |
| Parties | STATE v. Mary COSTANTINO. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is a petition for habeas corpus brought by Mary Costantino, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, for discharge from the custody of the respondent warden after being committed thereto for a term of 60 days upon being adjudged guilty of criminal contempt by a justice of the Superior Court on March 17, 1970. At that time the petitioner claimed an appeal from the judgment and subsequently filed the instant petition for habeas corpus. After consideration of the petition, we concluded that the petition for habeas corpus would be treated as a petition for admission to bail and as an appeal from the conviction for criminal contempt. It was thereupon assigned specially for hearing to May 6, 1970.
The record discloses that on March 17, 1970, during the trial of several defendants, some charged with murder and others with conspiring to murder, Lucille F. Hasney, the daughter of one of the alleged victims had been testifying in behalf of the prosecution. At the conclusion of her testimony, she left the witness stand and was being escorted through the spectators' benches at the rear of the courtroom by two state police detectives. She subsequently testified that, as she was passing through the group of spectators, one Mary Costantino, a sister of one of the defendants, Rudolph G. Sciarra, said to her: 'You are going to get killed.' Her testimony to this effect was corroborated by the testimony of the two state police detectives who were escorting her.
It appears further that the trial justice was on the bench while Mrs. Hasney was being escorted from the courtroom. The prosecution informed the trial justice of the actions of petitioner, and at the direction of the court questioned Mrs. Hasney and the two state police detectives. All of them testified as to the remark made by petitioner. The trial justice then adjudged petitioner 'guilty of criminal contempt' and sentenced her to 60 days in the Adult Correctional Institutions.
The only issue raised in this court is whether the trial justice erred in imposing sentence upon petitioner after finding her guilty of criminal contempt in a summary proceeding. It is apparently conceded that penalties were imposed upon petitioner in such a summary proceeding without due process of law. In this state it is settled that to sustain the validity of a summary action to punish for contempt, it must be shown that the contempt in its very nature was direct in its adverse effect upon the authority and prestige of the court. Only in such a case may the court summarily punish conduct directly contemptuous of its authority. In Noble v. Siwicki, 97 R.I. 288, 291-292, 197 A.2d 298, 301, we stated the rule as follows:
In Noble we noted that the rule to which we adhered is entirely consistent with that set forth in In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682. There the United States Supreme Court made it clear that, except in a narrowly limited category of contempts, due process of law requires that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel, and have an opportunity to testify and to produce other witnesses in his own behalf either for purposes of defense or explanation.
The Court in Oliver went on to state at 275-276, 68 S.Ct. at 509, 92 L.Ed. at 695: 'The narrow exception to these due process requirements includes only charges of misconduct, in open court, in the presence of the judge, which disturbs the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Champa, 84-304-C
...22 (1978); Marek v. Marek, 119 R.I. 841, 383 A.2d 1031 (1978); Tente v. Tente, 112 R.I. 636, 314 A.2d 149 (1974); State v. Costantino, 107 R.I. 215, 266 A.2d 33 (1970); Rhode Island Bar Association v. Automobile Service Association, 55 R.I. 122, 179 A. 139 During the attempt at establishing......
-
Mills v. Howard, 1379-M
... ... Mowry v. Bliss, 28 R.I. 114, 65 A. 616. Recently, in State v. Costantino, R.I., 266 A.2d 33, it was shown that, except in a very limited category of ... ...
-
Nestel v. Moran, 85-481-M
...least possible power adequate to the end proposed' " should be employed in contempt proceedings. Again, in State v. Costantino, 107 R.I. 215, 219-20, 266 A.2d 33, 35 (1970), this court "[T]he rule permitting summary punishment in such cases [direct contempt] contemplates conduct that effect......
-
Carter v. Folcarelli
...process requirements may not be ignored. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. at 275-76, 68 S.Ct. at 508-09, 92 L.Ed. at 695; State v. Costantino, 107 R.I. 215, 219, 266 A.2d 33, 35 (1970). In this case, however, Folcarelli was not charged with contempt, nor did he disrupt the proceedings. Furthermore, t......