State v. Vanasse
| Decision Date | 02 July 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 5259.,5259. |
| Citation | 107 A. 85 |
| Parties | STATE v. VANASSE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.
Emile Vanasse was tried on an indictment charging him with assault with intent to commit rape. Verdict of guilty, and respondent moved for new trial, which was refused. Respondent excepts. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted.
Antonio A. Capotosto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Eugene L. Jalbert, of Woonsocket, for defendant.
This is an indictment charging the respondent with an assault with intent to commit rape upon Mary Anne Hargraves.
The case was tried before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury, and resulted in a verdict of guilty. The respondent filed his motion for a new trial, which was denied by said justice. The case is before us upon the respondent's exception to the refusal of said justice to grant a new trial, and upon certain exceptions taken by him in the course of the trial.
The exception to the refusal of said justice to grant a new trial is without merit. It appears from the evidence presented by the state that on the 15th of April, 1918, between 9 and 10 o'clock in the evening, Mrs. Hargraves and a woman companion were walking along the Albion road, so called, in the town of Lincoln toward their home; that the respondent, a young man, accosted them, walked along near them, attempted to kiss the companion of Mrs. Hargraves, accompanying the attempt with indecent proposals to her; that the two women resisted him; that he seized Mrs. Hargraves, threw her to the ground, and then made violent attempts to overpower her and reach her person. The women screamed and cried, "Murder!" Their screams and cries attracted the attention of three men who were at a house, a considerable distance away. The three men hurried to the assistance of Mrs. Hargraves and her companion, and upon the approach of these men the respondent ran away and escaped. The respondent, who testified, made no denial of this evidence, but claimed that he had been drinking heavily upon the day in question and had no memory of his acts after 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that day. He also presented the testimony of other witnesses that lie had been drinking during the day, and that in the early evening he appeared to be intoxicated. His sole defense was that he was so drunk during the evening and night of April 15, 1918, as to be incapable of forming the intent to commit rape. The evidence fully warranted the finding that the respondent attempted to ravish Mrs. Hargraves, and that his conduct made it plain that he appreciated what he was doing; that he understood the criminal nature of his act and the serious consequences which would follow to himself if he should be caught and held responsible for the assault.
During the cross-examination of the respondent the Assistant Attorney General asked of the respondent the following question with reference to a former indictment against ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hockenhull
...take from him the power to withstand evil impulses and render his mind incapable of forming any sane design." State v. Vanasse, 42 R.I. 278, 281, 107 A. 85, 86 (1919); see State v. Doyon, 416 A.2d 130 (R.I. 1980); State v. McGehearty, 121 R.I. 55, 394 A.2d 1348 (1978); Danahey v. State, 118......
-
State v. McGehearty
...is an essential element of the crime of robbery. Drunkenness will negate that specific intent when, as we said in State v. Vanasse, 42 R.I. 278, 281, 107 A. 85, 86 (1919), it "is of such a degree as to completely paralyze the will of the respondent, take from him the power to withstand evil......
-
State v. Edwards
...926, 929 (R.I.1987). The standard for the defense of diminished capacity was authoritatively stated many years ago in State v. Vanasse, 42 R.I. 278, 107 A. 85 (1919). In that case, which involved a charge of assault with intent to commit rape, the defendant asserted that he was entitled to ......
-
State v. Reposa
...it cannot have been committed if by reason of intoxication, voluntary or otherwise, the required intent could not exist. State v. Vanasse, 42 R.I. 278, 107 A. 85. Thus, if a specific intent be required to justify a conviction for robbery, and if by reason of intoxication an accused had no s......