State v. Mercurio
| Citation | 96 R.I. 464,194 A.2d 574 |
| Decision Date | 25 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10366-10369,s. 10366-10369 |
| Parties | STATE (John J. McKenna) v. Cosimo MERCURIO (two cases). STATE (John J. McKenna) v. Florence T. MERCURIO (two cases). Ex. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Corinne P. Grande, Sp. Counsel, for state.
Eugene F. Cochran, Aram K. Berberian, Providence, for defendants.
These are four criminal complaints against the defendants who are husband and wife. The first two charge that the husband 'Did aid and assist in the recording of a bet on a horse race' and 'Did knowing [sic] have in his possession a certain slip or certificate such as is used in carrying on, promoting and playing the game commonly known as policy-lottery or policy.' In the other two cases the wife is charged with the same offenses.
The four cases were consolidated for trial before a superior court justice sitting without a jury and resulted in the convictions of defendants as charged. Each case is before us on defendant's bill of exceptions to the ruling sustaining the state's demurrer to defendant's plea in abatement, to the denial of the motion to suppress, to certain evidentiary rulings, and to the decision of the trial justice.
It appears from the record that about noon on May 8, 1961, defendants and a female companion were first observed by two police officers in an automobile parked across the street from Lorgnettes, Inc., an optical firm at 82 Aldrich street in the city of Providence. They were detectives Joseph R. Gonsalves and James H. Dodd of the Providence police 'C' squad, who testified they had information that the car in question was used by a person or persons in connection with gambling operations.
The defendant husband testified that he was the operator of the car at the time; that accompanied by his wife, who was employed at Lorgnettes, he drove to that establishment and picked up a fellow employee of Mrs. Mercurio; that he proceeded up Aldrich street to Broad, turned right, and continued to the intersection of Sackett street where the woman passenger alighted; that he then headed for home, driving down Broad street and up Potters avenue where he stopped for a red light at the intersection of Bucklin street; and that while thus stopped detective Gonsalves opened the passenger side door of the car, entered the rear seat, and directed him to drive to police headquarters.
The testimony of the defendant husband and of the detectives as to whether the former was 'ordered' or 'requested' to follow instructions is in sharp conflict. In any event the defendant husband did drive to the station where he and his wife were separated, both were questioned and, making certain incriminatory statements, disclosed that they had in their possession several envelopes containing cash, 'number slips,' and recorded horse bets.
The defendants were subsequently released and on the following day complainant procured warrants from the district court of the sixth judicial district on the basis of the evidence obtained from defendants on the previous day.
Appealing from convictions in the district court, defendants filed pleas in abatement, to which the state's demurrers were sustained. They also filed motions to suppress, which were denied by a superior court justice.
At their trials, defendants objected to the introduction of the evidence and to the admission of statements made by them during their interrogation.
Although defendants preserved and have prosecuted all of their exceptions to this court, we deem it necessary to consider only their exceptions to the denial of their motions to suppress.
The defendant husband testified that prior to his release on May 8 he was fingerprinted and photographed. Whether the defendant wife was so processed at the station does not appear since she did not testify at any time.
Both detectives admitted under cross-examination that from the time they first observed defendants in the parked car on Aldrich street to the moment when detective Gonsalves ordered the operator of the car to drive to the station, neither defendant gave either officer any reason to believe that a misdemeanor had been or was being committed in their presence.
Moreover, detective Gonsalves freely acknowledged that after he had directed the husband to drive to the station, defendants were not at liberty to drive anywhere else....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bilderbach
...illegal arrest do not mention these elements. (Gatlin v. United States (1963) 117 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 326 F.2d 666, 671-673; State v. Mercurio (R.I.1963) 194 A.2d 574; see Commonwealth v. Jacobs (Mass.1963) 191 N.E.2d 873, 880-881, 346 Mass. 300.) We do not pass on any questions involving the......
-
State v. Jackson
...v. Burke, 215 F.Supp. 508, 511 (D.Mass.1963); but cf. Gatlin v. United States, 326 F.2d 666, 671--673 (D.C.Cir. 1963); State v. Mercurio, R.I., 194 A.2d 574 (1963). Although the defendant Jackson's arrest was made without an arrest warrant, it was not necessarily illegal because in the atte......
-
State v. Moore
...holds that any confession made subsequent to an illegal arrest, regardless of its voluntariness, must be excluded. In State v. Mercurio, 96 R.I. 464, 194 A.2d 574 (1963), the defendants were arrested whithout warrants for violation of the gambling statutes, a misdemeanor. The police had inf......
-
State v. Carufel, 782-E
...19 Ohio App.2d 234, 250 N.E.2d 907; or that it was obtained incident to defendant's lawful arrest. State v. Brown, supra; State v. Mercurio, 96 R.I. 464, 194 A.2d 574. Because these matters were not fully explored at trial, we now lack the factual setting necessary for a determination of th......