State v. Frazier
| Decision Date | 06 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-E,64-E |
| Citation | 103 R.I. 199,235 A.2d 886 |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. Carl FRAZIER. x. & C. |
This is an indictment which charges the defendant with the unlawful sale of heroin in violation of the provisions of G.L.1956, § 21-28-32, as amended. The case was tried to a justice of the superior court and a jury which returned a verdict of guilty. His motion for a new trial being denied, the defendant is before us on certain exceptions 1 purportedly taken to various rulings made by the trial justice during the course of the trial.
The bulk of the testimony which led to the conviction of defendant wa given by an admitted narcotic addict and prostitute. She purchased the heroin from defendant with money given her for that express purpose by two members of the Providence police The officers had, with the witness' knowledge, followed her as she went to keep her appointment with defendant. The defendant was arrested shortly after this witness had delivered the heroin she had purchased from defendant to the police.
On his appeal to us, defendant's appellate counsel has briefed and argued three points. He first alleges that a portion of the charge given the jury was prejudicial; second, that a mistrial should have been declared when, after the foreman had announced the jury's verdict as 'Guilty,' a juryman during the subsequent polling of the jury answered 'Not guilty' in reply to the court clerk's inquiry; 2 and third, that the trial justice erred in not continuing the poll of the remaining members of the jury after their associate had responded 'Not guilty.' We have also eeceived a supplementary brief prepared by defendant. In his own brief, defendant repeats the argument that he suffered prejudice by the charge to the jury and further contends that the method employed by the police in this case, particularly in supplying money to the prosecution's witness, raises the issue of entrapment.
We have examined the record and find that there is a notable absence of exceptions taken by defendant in the superior court to any of the actions of which he complains.
The transcript shows that defendant's trial counsel specifically volunteered the statement that he was without an exception to the charge given to the jury. In addition the record discloses that defendant offered no objection to any alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ballard
...extraordinary circumstances wherein a defendant has 'suffered an abridgment of his basic constitutional rights.' State v. Frazier, 103 R.I. 199, 201, 235 A.2d 886, 887 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1033, 88 S.Ct. 1430, 20 L.Ed.2d 292 (1968). Even courts in those jurisdictions wherein Rule ......
-
State v. Carpio
...a defendant has ‘suffered an abridgment of his basic constitutional rights.’ ” Williams, 432 A.2d at 670 (quoting State v. Frazier, 103 R.I. 199, 201, 235 A.2d 886, 887 (1967)). We are satisfied that such an extraordinary circumstance is not present in this case. Indeed, we are hard-pressed......
-
State v. Carpio
...a defendant has 'suffered an abridgment of his basic constitutional rights.'" Williams, 432 A.2d at 670 (quoting State v. Frazier, 103 R.I. 199, 201, 235 A.2d 886, 887 (1967)). We are satisfied that such an extraordinary circumstance is not present in this case. Indeed, we are hard-pressed ......
-
Frazier v. Langlois
...to imprisonment for 22 years. His bill of exceptions to this conviction was overruled by this court on December 6, 1967. State v. Frazier, R.I., 235 A.2d 886. The petitioner's bill of exceptions to his conviction on July 2, 1964, was overruled by this court on July 5, 1966, and a motion to ......