State v. Vinagro, 80-66-M
| Decision Date | 14 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-66-M,80-66-M |
| Parties | STATE v. Louis L. VINAGRO, Jr. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This petition for certiorari involves a criminal complaint that contains four counts, all of which relate to various infractions of the provisions of G.L. 1956 (1976 Reenactment) chapter 1 of title 4, which is entitled "Cruelty to Animals." Three of the four counts each claim that Louis L. Vinagro, Jr. (Vinagro) kept a pit bulldog for the express purpose of having the dog take part in fights. The complaints were filed by Lionel Hetu, general agent for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who was acting pursuant to the specific authority vested in him by § 4-1-21. The complaints were issued following a search of Vinagro's residence in Johnston by agent Hetu, who had obtained a search warrant earlier from the District Court. The warrant's inventory return indicates the seizure of three pit bulldogs. The three possession counts violate the provisions of § 4-1-10. 1 The case was tried before a justice of the District Court, who, after a lengthy hearing, found Vinagro guilty of all four counts. The defendant was fined $50 on each of the possession charges. This is the maximum amount called for by § 4-1-10. He subsequently filed this petition for certiorari with us pursuant to the terms of G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-22-1.1 (1980 Cum.Supp.).
In his petition, Vinagro contends that portions of § 12-22-1.1 which authorizes a direct review of the District Court's action on the possession convictions by way of certiorari violate his right under the Rhode Island Constitution to a jury trial. Our disposition of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other issues raised by Vinagro.
In order that Vinagro's jury-trial claim can be put in its true frame of reference, we shall first refer to the statutory classifications of crime that are found within G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-1-2 (1980 Cum.Supp.). This section describes four varieties of criminal offenses and states that, unless otherwise provided, any criminal offense that carries a potential punishment of more than a year's imprisonment or a fine in excess of $500 is to be considered a felony. Any offense that may be punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to a year or by a fine not in excess of $500, or both, is described as a misdemeanor, while an offense carrying a potential of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to $500, or both, is called a petty misdemeanor. Any offense that is punishable only by a fine that does not exceed $500 is called a violation.
Because of the provisions of G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-3-1 (1980 Cum.Supp.), the District Court has original jurisdiction when the offenses are classified as misdemeanors or violations. Under the present statutory scheme in Rhode Island, "(e)very person aggrieved by the sentence of the district court for any offense other than a violation may, within five (5) days after such sentence appeal therefrom to the superior court * * *." General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-22-1 (1980 Cum.Supp.). The appeal to Superior Court is a de novo appeal and is to be tried by a jury unless the defendant waives his right to the jury trial. See State v. McGuire, 90 R.I. 301, 157 A.2d 657 (1960); G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-17-3.
Vinagro argues that the General Assembly acted unconstitutionally when it failed to provide a de novo appeal to the Superior Court for violation convictions first found in the District Court. He claims that the Rhode Island Constitution gives him the right to a jury trial, which right is broader in scope than that granted by the United States Constitution. He concedes that he is not entitled to have a jury trial under the Federal Constitution because the maximum penalty for each charge in the case at bar is a $50 fine.
Although the United States Supreme Court in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 73, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1890, 26 L.Ed.2d 437, 443 (1970), has ruled that an accused is not entitled to a jury trial under the Federal Constitution when the potential sentence cannot exceed six months, the Court has not established the right to a jury trial in criminal cases in which only a fine has been imposed against an individual. However, two Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted $500 as the minimum amount that would guarantee a jury trial. United States v. Hamdan, 552 F.2d 276, 280 (9th Cir. 1977); Douglass v. First National Realty Corp., 543 F.2d 894, 902 (D.C.Cir.1976). Accordingly, we believe that it is safe to conclude that a jury trial is not required by the Federal Constitution when the maximum fine to be imposed, as in the cases at bar, is less than $500. See Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 2190-91, 45 L.Ed.2d 319, 335 (1975).
However, the fact that Vinagro is not entitled to a jury trial under the Federal Constitution does not terminate our inquiry. The right to trial by jury has its own unique basis under the Rhode Island Constitution. This right is found in the following provisions of our State Constitution: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury * * *" (art. I, sec. 10) and "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate" (art. I, sec. 15).
The inviolability provision of art. I, sec. 15 has been held to be a guarantee that justiciable controversies which were triable by a petit jury when the Rhode Island Constitution was adopted in 1842 will continue to be so triable without any restrictions or conditions that could materially hamper or burden the right. In re McCloud, 110 R.I. 431, 435, 293 A.2d 512, 515 (1972); Opinion to the Senate, 108 R.I. 628, 633, 278 A.2d 852, 855 (1971); Mathews v. Tripp, 12 R.I. 256, 258 (1879). Section 15 conserves the right as it existed at the time the State Constitution was adopted. Mathews v. Tripp, 12 R.I. at 258. Thus, the decisive issue presently before us is whether a defendant was entitled to a jury trial in 1842 for the type of offense with which Vinagro is charged. If in 1842 a defendant was entitled to a jury trial for this type of offense, then Vinagro is entitled to one today.
As will be seen, our research reveals that the General Assembly acted unconstitutionally when in 1976 it established the classification "violation" and failed to provide the de novo appeal to the Superior Court as it did for those individuals who were charged with committing misdemeanors or petty misdemeanors. It is clear that in 1842 and prior thereto "any person" who was aggrieved at "any sentence" pronounced against him by a magistrate 2 was entitled to an appeal to the next highest court, the Court of Common Pleas. 3 Furthermore, we are compelled, after an examination of the pertinent historical documents, to conclude that such an appeal was a de novo appeal with a right to trial by jury.
The pertinent part of the statute that governed appeals from a magistrate's sentence in 1842 read as follows:
Public Laws Feb. 3, 1838, ch. 9, § 16, "An act concerning crimes and punishments." (Emphasis added.)
Initially, we note that the absence of an explicit reference to "de novo appeal" or to "trial by jury" is not determinative. Indeed, the present statute governing the appeals to Superior Court in criminal matters does not mention either of those terms. General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-22-1 (1980 Cum.Supp.). The absence of such terms in the 1838 act can be explained by reference to other portions of that act and to cases at that time.
We attach significance to the fact that the appeal under P.L.1838, ch. 9, § 16, was to the Court of Common Pleas. That court was one wherein a jury was utilized in criminal cases. 4 Public Laws Feb. 3, 1838, ch. 9, § 19, p. 990, "An act concerning crimes and punishments." We also attach significance to that portion of P.L.1838, ch. 9, § 16, which states that the appeal is to be "heard and tried." (Emphasis added.) The word "tried" denotes a factfinding type of appeal rather than an appeal limited to correcting errors of law.
A reference to the statute governing appeals in civil cases indicates that the lack of an explicit reference to "jury" is without significance. In 1822 certain civil actions were tried in the first instance by a Justice of the Peace. As in criminal cases, an appeal could be taken to the Court of Common Pleas. Public Laws 1822, "An act establishing Justices of the Peace, and regulating the proceedings and trials in civil actions brought before them," Section 8, p. 145:
(Emphasis in original.)
One can observe that this statute governing civil appeals does not mention "trial by jury," just as that statute governing criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. City of Providence v. Auger
...who ha[d] been convicted of a zoning violation, ha[d] a right to a de novo trial by jury in the Superior Court”); State v. Vinagro, 433 A.2d 945, 945–46 (R.I.1981) (stating that one of the defendant's arguments on appeal was that the statute authorizing direct review of the District Court's......
-
Bendick v. Cambio
...43 A. 848 (1899). We have been stringent in the application of this imperative in both civil and criminal cases. See, e.g., State v. Vinagro, 433 A.2d 945 (R.I.1981); State v. Holliday, 109 R.I. 93, 280 A.2d 333 (1971); Rowell v. Kaplan, 103 R.I. 60, 235 A.2d 91 (1967). We have stated that ......
-
State v. Hall
...204, 4 A.2d at 489. Indeed, "Nile right to trial by jury has its own unique basis under the Rhode Island Constitution." State v. Vinagro, 433 A.2d 945, 946 (R.I.1981). In Vinagro, the defendant was convicted by the District Court of four violations of the "Cruelty to Animals" statute. Id. a......
-
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 81-268-M
...is entitled to such jury-trial right as was enjoyed at the time of the adoption of the Rhode Island Constitution. State v. Vinagro, R.I., 433 A.2d 945, 947 (1981). 3 Additionally, we recognized in Vinagro that "(t)he right to trial by jury has its own unique basis under the Rhode Island Con......