State v. Rossi., 8641.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8641.,8641. |
| Parties | STATE v. ROSSI. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Walter Curry, Judge.
Antonetta Rossi was convicted of manslaughter, and she brings exceptions.
An exception sustained and case remitted for a new trial.
John H. Nolan, Atty. Gen., and A. Norman La Salle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Peter W. McKiernan, John C. Going, McKiernan, McElroy & Going, William E. Walsh, and Curry & Walsh, all of Providence, for defendant.
This defendant was tried in the superior court upon an indictment for manslaughter. She was found guilty as charged and the trial justice later denied her motion for a new trial. The defendant presses before us a number of exceptions, among which is exception 29 to the court's ruling denying her motion to adjourn the trial, from about 2:30 p.m. on October 7 to 9 a.m. of the next morning, to permit her to obtain the evidence of Dr. John A. Bolster, who resided and practiced in the city of Providence. In view of our conclusion on this exception, it is unnecessary for us to refer to the evidence respecting defendant's guilt or innocence, or to consider any of defendant's other exceptions.
It appears of record that the trial of this case began on Monday, October 4, 1943. On that day a jury was drawn and, after the state had made its opening, a view was taken of certain premises. Evidence for the state consumed the whole of the next two court days and, when the court adjourned on October 6, the state had not closed its case. The next morning, Thursday, October 7, and apparently before the court convened, the defendant made application in typewritten form to the trial justice for a subpoena duces tecum, hereinafter also called a subpoena for convenience, in strict accordance with rule 21 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court, which, in so far as pertinent, requires that the application for such process shall name as specifically as may be the document or documents which the applicant desires to have produced in court. The rule further provides that, except in certain cases not necessary to mention here, the application will be granted in the discretion of the court.
Defendant's application sets forth that it was ‘necessary for the proper presentation of her case’ to have present in court on October 8, at 10 o'clock a.m., all records pertaining to the medical treatment and care of Antonetta Rossi rendered to her by Dr. John A. Bolster of Providence. It then prays that the court issue a subpoena directed to said doctor commanding him to be in court on October 8, at 10 o'clock, a.m., with the above-mentioned records. The application as typed was amended, either by the trial justice himself or at his direction, by interlining the figure ‘10’ in the phrase ‘at 10 o'clock, A.M.’ and substituting in ink immediately above such interlineation the figure ‘9’ in each instance. The ruling of the trial justice in this matter is evidence by the following order, signed and dated October 7 by him, which appears on the face of the application: ‘Let Subpoena Duces Tecum issue forthwith as above prayed.’
A subpoena, dated October 7, was thereupon issued by the clerk of and under the seal of the superior court commanding the attendance in that court of Dr. Bolster with the specified records on the following day, October 8, at 9 o'clock, a.m. This subpoena was then given to a duly authorized officer for service.
When court convened on the morning of October 7, the defense ended its cross-examination of a witness for the prosecution, whereupon the state immediately rested its case. The defendant then moved and argued at some length for a direction of verdict, which motion was denied by the trial justice. Thereafter the defense proceeded to introduce its evidence through five witnesses, one of whom was the defendant herself. A considerable part of this evidence, both in direct and cross-examination, related to the physical and mental condition of the defendant from about 1938 to within a few days of May 26, 1943, the date in the indictment of the alleged offense. It repeatedly appears in this evidence that Dr. Bolster was the only doctor who had treated the defendant at different times during that entire period for her ailment, the nature and extent of which neither she nor any other of her witnesses was able to specify except in broad and general language.
It so happened that the defense completed the presentation of its evidence through the then available witnesses at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day, October 7. What occurred thereafter in the presence of the jury, between the trial justice and defendant's attorney is best shown by the following rather extensive but necessary quotation from the transcript. It will be noted that the prosecuting officer took no part in this matter.
‘The Court: Is there any rebuttal on the part of the state?
‘Mr. LaSalle: We have no rebuttal at this state of the testimony.
‘The Court: I don't think under the circumstances I should delay the completion of the trial of this case.
‘The Court: I don't think, Mr. McKiernan, I shall delay the trial of this case.
‘The Court: I understand you are asking the Court to adjourn until tomorrow morning.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patriarca
...(1937). However, that discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the constitutional guarantees involved. State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 43 A.2d 323 (1945). In that case we recognized that a limitation upon the sixth amendment's guarantee 'to have compulsory process for obtaining......
-
State v. Levitt
...113 R.I. 32, 39-40, 317 A.2d 449, 454 (1974); State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37-38, 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973); State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 289-90, 43 A.2d 323, 326 (1945). We considered this question at some length in State v. Patriarca, supra, and we concluded that the denial of a contin......
-
State v. Carillo, 1820-E
...adjournment of the trial may be necessary to effectuate that right. State v. Patriarca, R.I., 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973); State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 43 A.2d 323 (1945). But the existence of that right does not require a continuance upon request as a matter of course, especially when an accu......
-
State v. Lomba
...with the constitutional guarantees involved.” State v. Patriarca, 112 R.I. 14, 37, 308 A.2d 300, 315 (1973) (citing State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 43 A.2d 323 (1945)). “Due process requires that every defendant have a full opportunity to establish the best and fullest defense available to him......