State v. Mantia
| Decision Date | 07 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 10559,10559 |
| Citation | 223 A.2d 843,101 R.I. 367 |
| Parties | STATE v. Peter A. MANTIA. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is a complaint and warrant charging the defendant with operating a motor vehicle whose brakes were inadequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold said motor vehicle in violation of G.L.1956, § 31-23-4(1). It was tried before a jury in the superior court and resulted in a verdict of guilty. The trial justice denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and he has duly prosecuted a bill of exceptions to this court.
From the evidence it appears that in the town of Johnston on September 13, 1962, at approximately 8:45 a.m., Police Officer Joseph R. Devine of the Johnston police department was dispatched to the intersection of Steere and Spring Drives to investigate an automobile collision. Steere Drive runs generally east and west while Spring Drive crosses it running north and south. Upon his arrival, Devine observed defendant's motor vehicle on Steere Drive several car lengths beyond the intersection headed in an easterly direction. It had struck another motor vehicle which had been proceeding in a northerly direction on Spring Drive.
The officer testified that during his investigation at the scene of the collision defendant told him that as he approached the intersection he went to apply his brakes and found that he had none; that his brake pedal went down to the floor; that he swerved to the right to avoid striking the automobile which was traveling northerly on Spring Drive; that he glanced off the left rear of the north-bound vehicle and stopped with the use of his hand brake some distance further down on Steere Drive; and that his brakes were not very good when he had left home earlier that day. The officer tested the foot brake in defendant's automobile and when he pressed down on the brake pedal it went clear to the floor.
Devine further testified that the intersection was 24 feet in width, that there was no curbing in this section of the town of Johnston and that both streets had recently been resurfaced. He stated that automobiles travel back and forth on Steere Drive.
The operator of the automobile which was struck by defendant substantially corroborated the officer's testimony as to the statements made by defendant about the operating condition of his brakes prior to the collision.
The defendant who lived in Providence was about nineteen years old at the time of the incident. His testimony varied substantially in many material respects from that of officer Devine. He testified that he had worked in a manufacturing plant in Cranston until 8 a.m.; that upon leaving work he drove, as was his usual custom, a distance of some eight or ten miles to his fiancee's home so that he could take her to work; that he had picked her up and was proceeding in an easterly direction on Steere Drive; that as he approached the intersection of Spring Drive he saw the north-bound automobile; that he applied his foot brake, skidded into the other vehicle, bounced off it and continued around it; and that he stopped at the location described by the officer.
The defendant denied that he had made any statements to the investigating officer as to the improper functioning of his brakes at any time prior to the collision. To the contrary he said they were working properly and it was only after the collision that they failed to operate properly. He also presented evidence that his brakes had been repaired in May 1962, some four months before the collision.
The fiancee of defendant was a witness in his behalf. She too denied that defendant had made any of the admissions attributed to him by officer Devine and the operator of the second vehicle.
Although there was testimony that there were skid marks and liquid on the road, there was no evidence to identify the skid marks as being those of defendant's car nor was the liquid identified as either defendant's brake fluid or water from his radiator.
Although defendant has filed a bill containing 17 exceptions, he is pressing only four. In keeping with our established rule, the remaining 13 exceptions not being briefed or argued are deemed to be waived. Of the four exceptions before us, three relate to the denial of his motion non obstante veredicto, his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for a new trial respectively. His fourth exception is to a portion of the charge given the jury.
We will first consider defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. At common law a judgment non obstante veredicto was given in civil cases on the motion of the plaintiff because the defendant's plea confessed the cause of action and set up matters in avoidance which were insufficient to constitute either a defense or a bar to the action. It was judgment for the plaintiff on the pleadings after the verdict for the defendant because the pleas of defendant did not present a defense. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 60, p. 148; Puterbaugh Common Law Pleading and Practice (10th ed.) § 1103, p. 1285.
With the passage of time, the use of this pleading in certain jurisdictions has been extended to the defendants and has been expanded to include in consideration thereof the evidence in the cause. These modifications have been accomplished in some instances by judicial fiat and in others by legislative enactments. In Rhode Island, however, this motion has received our official recognition only in civil cases and its use has been limited to the plaintiff. Burnham v. New York, P. & B.R.R., 17 R.I. 544, 23 A. 638; Tillinghast v. McLeod, 17 R.I. 208, 21 A. 345. The legislature has been silent in this field. We believe that such a motion has no standing in criminal trial procedures in this state. In the context in which it has been used in Rhode Island it would serve no useful purpose in a criminal case. It is unquestioned that in the trial of criminal cases the state could not present such a motion. Once the jury had returned a verdict for the defendant, the prosecution would be terminated. Under our practice the court could not grant the state a new trial much less render a verdict in its behalf on any motion non obstante veredicto. The same issues which defendant seeks to resolve here can be raised and determined either by a motion for a directed verdict or by a motion for a new trial with exceptions taken to their denial. This he has done.
The defendant in pressing his exceptions to the denials of his motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial contends that the trial justice's ruling on each was erroneous because his conviction cannot stand as it is based solely on his admissions to officer Devine as to the condition of his brakes before the collision. He also contends that no evidence was presented to show that Steere Drive was a 'public highway' within the contemplation of G.L.1956, § 31-1-23(a).
In his brief he sets forth the proposition that a defendant in a criminal case cannot be convicted solely on his own admission and cites in support thereof Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192. We are in full accord with this principle. State v. Boswell, 73 R.I. 358, 56 A.2d 196.
In this case, however, the record shows that there is additional evidence which corroborates the oral admissions made to the police officer by defendant. Officer Devine's testing of defendant's brakes and the result thereof constitute the necessary link.
This testimony takes the instant case out of the strictures laid down in Smith and Boswell and places it within the purview of State v. Jacobs, 21 R.I. 259, 43 A. 31, and State v. Wheeler, 92 R.I. 389, 169 A.2d 7, where we said that an admission is sufficient to sustain a conviction if there is some corroborative evidence produced tending to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thorpe, 79-361-C
...state, the defendant is entitled to an explanation. Holland v. United States, 209 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1954); State v. Mantia, 101 R.I. 367, 375-76, 223 A.2d 843, 848 (1966). The instruction here was proper for the following reasons. First and most important, the charge emphasized that Thorp......
-
State v. Contreras, 266-E
...in the evidence and to viewing most favorably to the state the evidence and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. State v. Mantia, 101 R.I. 367, 223 A.2d 843; State v. Reardon, 101 R.I. 18, 219 A.2d 767; State v. Poole, 97 R.I. 215, 197 A.2d 163. It was, therefore, not error to deny th......
-
State v. Vargus, 75--236-C
...from the evidence or the lack thereof as distinguished from a mere suspicion, apprehension, or imaginary doubt. State v. Mantia, 101 R.I. 367, 375-76, 223 A.2d 843, 848 (1966). Consequently, my review of the record shows a superabundance of untainted evidence which convinces me beyond a rea......
-
State v. Page
...justice correctly and fairly defined and described the law pertinent to the case at hand, we shall overrule the exception. State v. Mantia, 101 R.I. 367, 223 A.2d 843. In reviewing the instructions in their entirety, we firmly believe the trial justice accurately communicated to the jury th......