State v. Sisson, 668.

Citation192 A. 209
Decision Date18 May 1937
Docket NumberNo. 668.,668.
PartiesSTATE v. SISSON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Merrill T. Sisson was convicted of driving a motor vehicle so as to endanger life and limb resulting in death. His motion for a new trial was granted, and from an order denying his motion for a change of venue, Merrill T. Sisson brings certiorari.

Record denying motion for change of venue quashed and case remitted for further proceedings.

John P. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., and Michael De Ciantis, Third Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Alfred H. O. Boudreau, of Providence, for defendant.

CAPOTOSTO, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari brought by the defendant, who stands indicted for driving a motor vehicle so as to endanger life and limb resulting in death, to review the action of a justice of the superior court, sitting for the county of Kent, denying his motion for a change of venue.

General Laws 1923, c. 323, §§ 21, 22, and 23 provide that whenever, upon petition by either party to any proceeding civil or criminal, it shall be made to appear "to the satisfaction of the superior court" that, by reason of local prejudice, the petitioner cannot have "a full, fair, and impartial trial" in the court for the county where the proceeding shall have been commenced, "the court shall order" the proceeding to be removed for trial to such other county as shall be deemed most equitable and fair for the parties. This statute invests the superior court with judicial discretion to be cautiously exercised in accordance with justice and the law of the land. As no other remedy is expressly provided to bring before us an alleged error in the exercise of such discretion, we will, in a proper case, review the decision of the superior court on certiorari for the purpose of carrying out the revisory and appellate power conferred on this court by the Constitution.

On January 20, 1937, the defendant filed a petition for a change of venue setting forth that by reason of local prejudice he cannot have a fair and impartial trial in Kent county. Generally speaking, the allegations upon which the defendant bases this claim are that the facts and circumstances of the offense charged in the indictment against him were repeatedly referred to in the public press and by members of the community in general in connection with certain developments that followed a preliminary hearing in the case; and that this publicity and general comment, together with the inferences that might be drawn therefrom, created a prejudice against him throughout the county. The petition further states that the defendant was convicted of the charge in the indictment and that the trial justice granted a new trial on the ground of passion and prejudice.

It appears of record that the defendant was convicted by a jury in Kent county on June 2, 1936; that the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and that the motion was heard on November 28, 1936. This motion was granted by the trial justice at the conclusion of the hearing, when he said: "I feel this man was tried under conditions that were rather unfairly balanced. I never thought that the defendant did anything deliberate. He has been convicted but I think there was something about the case that was given so much publicity that he was tried four or five times before we got the verdict."

At the hearing on his petition for a change of venue, the defendant introduced in evidence this statement of the justice who presided at the jury trial and a number of affidavits from citizens living in different sections of Kent county supporting the allegations of prejudice in the petition. He also produced witnesses who testified that there was prejudice against the defendant in the county. The state, in opposing the petition, rested its case on the cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the defendant, on a criticism of the decision granting the defendant a new trial, and on the claim that the removal of the case from Kent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Hightower
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • August 1, 1995
    ...... Not only did he fail to present convincing evidence of local prejudice, see State v. Sisson, 58 R.I. 200, 203, 192 A. 209, 211 (1937), he presented no evidence whatever of actual prejudice on the part of the jurors ultimately selected from ......
  • White v. White., 806.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • March 24, 1944
    ......1 of amendments to our State Constitution, the provisions of G.L.1938, chap. 495, § 2, and by a series of decisions of this ...319, 166 A. 685; Rose v. Standard Oil Co., 56 R.I. 272, 185 A. 251; State v. Sisson, 58 R.I. 200, 192 A. 209; Brickle v. Quinn, 63 R.I. 120, 7 A.2d 890; In re Estate of James, 64 R.I. ......
  • State v. Fay, 759.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 22, 1940
    ......See Hyde v. Superior Court, 28 R.I. 204, 66 A. 292; State v. Coleman, 58 R.I. 6, 190 A. 791, 109 A.L.R. 787; State v. Sisson, 58 R.I. 200, 192 A. 209.         Further, it is expressly provided in G. L.1938, chap. 495, § 2, that: "The supreme court shall have ......
  • Berberian v. Town of Westerly, 75-324-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • January 6, 1978
    ...... showing is required that defendants would be denied a "full, fair and impartial trial." See State v. Sisson, 58 R.I. 200, 192 A. 209 (1937). No showing of prejudice having been made by defendant ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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