State v. Kachanis

Citation379 A.2d 915,119 R.I. 439
Decision Date11 November 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-451-C,76-451-C
PartiesSTATE v. Anthony M. KACHANIS. A.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
OPINION

PAOLINO, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction following a jury verdict of guilty on one count of filing a false police report, one count of conspiracy to obtain money under false pretenses and one count of attempted larceny from an insurance company.

On the evening of Friday, November 14, 1975, a car belonging to defendant was taken from the parking lot of a shopping mall in Warwick where he and his wife were doing some early Christmas shopping. The defendant reported this loss to the police in that city and subsequently filed a claim with his insurance company. One week later the Warwick police contacted Kachanis and requested an interview with him; he and his wife went to the police station that evening. Soon after his arrival, his Miranda rights were recited to him and he was questioned about the disappearance of his car. As a result of the interchange between defendant and two Warwick officers, Kachanis wrote out a statement describing and implicating himself in a plot to dispose of his car and to collect from his insurance carrier for the loss of the car. On the basis of this statement and prior statements by others who admitted involvement in the disappearance and dismantling of the car, defendant was booked, then released to appear the following Monday morning.

A preliminary hearing on defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss was held prior to trial. The basis of this motion was defendant's claim that the police officers continued their interrogation of him after he had identified his attorney and requested to speak with him, and that the self-incriminating statement made by him was inadmissible at trial since it was obtained through violation of his sixth-amendment rights. In denying defendant's motion, the trial justice found that defendant had asked for his attorney but had waived this right by continuing to speak voluntarily to the officers. On the following day defendant went to trial on the merits before a justice of the Superior Court sitting with a jury. A guilty verdict was returned on each of the three counts charged. Kachanis was sentenced to serve 1 year on the first count; on the second and third counts he was sentenced to a 5-year term, the first year to run concurrent and the remaining 4 years suspended, with probation for 4 years. Execution of the judgment was stayed pending this appeal.

The defendant bases his appeal on two claims of error: first, that the trial justice erred in allowing into evidence statements made by defendant during custodial interrogation; and second, that the trial justice erred in allowing into evidence photographs of motor vehicle parts without proper foundation.

The first claim of error stems from the denial of defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss. At the hearing on that motion, defendant asserted, as he does now on appeal, that he informed the police of his desire to consult an attorney and that interrogation continued...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Innis, 75-333-C
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 9 d3 Agosto d3 1978
    ...an absolute right to consult an attorney before being subjected to police interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, supra; State v. Kachanis, R.I., 379 A.2d 915, 916 (1977); State v. Lachapelle, 112 R.I. 105, 111, 308 A.2d 467, 470 (1973). There is no dispute that defendant requested to see a lawy......
  • People v. Chavis
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 8 d2 Abril d2 2003
    ...car was stolen); State v. Matilla, 339 N.W.2d 54, 55 (Minn., 1983) (defendant falsely reported being burglarized); State v. Kachanis, 119 R.I. 439, 440, 379 A.2d 915 (1977) (defendant falsely reported his car stolen). 2 The trial court's finding that a carjacking actually occurred is unchal......
  • People v. Chavis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 9 d2 Outubro d2 2001
    ...car was stolen); State v. Matilla, 339 N.W.2d 54, 55 (Minn., 1983) (defendant falsely reported being burglarized); State v. Kachanis, 119 R.I. 439, 440, 379 A.2d 915 (1977) (defendant falsely reported his car 2. The trial court's finding that a carjacking actually occurred is unchallenged o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT