State v. Raposa
| Decision Date | 10 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 10749,10749 |
| Citation | 217 A.2d 469,100 R.I. 516 |
| Parties | STATE v. Edward S. RAPOSA. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Corinne P. Grande, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for State.
Robert J. Ferranty, Ronald H. Glantz, Providence, for defendant.
This indictment charged that the defendant 'did assault one William R. Pepin with intent to murder him.' The case was tried to a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury, which therefore returned a verdict of guilty of 'assault with a dangerous weapon.' The defendant is now in this court prosecuting a bill of exceptions.
The first of these exceptions was taken by defendant to the denial by the trial judge of his motion that 'I would like all the prosecution witnesses excused from the court, please.' It appears from the transcript that the prosecutor did not object to the granting of this motion other than as to Sergeant William R. Pepin, the alleged victim of the assault for which defendant was being tried. The prosecution, conceding that Sergeant Pepin would be a witness, argued that he had been in charge of the investigation and that his assistance was needed in the prosecution of the indictment. The court thereupon excluded all of the prosecution witnesses but Sergeant Pepin.
This court adheres to the rule that the exclusion of witnesses from a courtroom during the taking of testimony at a trial is a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the trial justice and that such a decision will be disturbed by this court on review thereof only when an abuse of that discretion clearly appears. State v. Cyrulik, R.I., 214 A.2d 382. In our opinion, the denial of defendant's motion to exclude all witnesses in the instant circumstances did not constitute such an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
In contending that the denial of his motion constituted an abuse of the court's discretion, defendant relies substantially on Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Pa. 417, 88 A.2d 915, 32 A.L.R.2d 346. In that case the court found that the denial of a motion to exclude two particular witnesses constituted an abuse of the court's discretion. The defendant, as we understand him, apparently views this as implying prejudice from the very denial of such a motion standing alone. However, the court in that case went on to hold that the denial of a blanket motion to exclude all witnesses made prior to trial without the assignment of reasons therefor did not constitute an abuse of the court's discretion. The court said that a request for sequestration of a witness or witnesses should be specific and must be supported by some reason. In the instant case no reason was given for the proposed exclusion of the witness Pepin and, that being so, we hold that the court did not err in denying that motion.
The defendant contends also that the trial justice erred in instructing the jury that under the instant indictment he could be found guilty of the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon. The trial justice charged specifically on this point as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ashness
...justice. The Supreme Court will not disturb his decision on review absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Raposa, 100 R.I. 516, 517, 217 A.2d 469, 470 (1966); State v. Cyrulik, 100 R.I. 282, 284, 214 A.2d 382, 383-84 A review of the record in no way indicates that witnesses......
-
State v. Lassor
...discretion will not be disturbed by this court "unless an abuse of that discretion clearly appears". Id. at 486; State v. Raposa, 100 R.I. 516, 517, 217 A.2d 469, 470 (1966); State v. Cyrulik, 100 R.I. 282, 284, 214 A.2d 382, 383-84 In Mathias we applied the same standard in reviewing a tri......
-
State v. Lerner
...The purpose of G.L.1956, ch. 12 of title 12, was to eliminate such technicalities in criminal pleading. In State v. Raposa, 100 R.I. 516, 519, 217 A.2d 469, 471 (1966), we said: 'We do not propose now to burden the state with the task of alleging specifically in an indictment, such as the o......
-
State v. Perez
...disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Id.; see also State v. McDowell, 685 A.2d 252, 258 (R.I.1996); State v. Raposa, 100 R.I. 516, 517, 217 A.2d 469, 470 (1966); State v. Cyrulik, 100 R.I. 282, 284, 214 A.2d 382, 383-84 (1965). It should be noted, however, that a trial justice......