Bodge v. Moran

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Bodge v. Moran

429 A.2d 142, 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1191

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 26, 1981

DocketNo. 81-128-M.P.

StatusPublished

This text of 429 A.2d 142 (Bodge v. Moran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bodge v. Moran, 429 A.2d 142, 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1191 (R.I. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case comes before us on a petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein petitioner seeks admission to bail pending his trial on robbery and murder charges. A Superior Court judge has denied bail, having determined that the state had met its burden of establishing that proof of petitioner’s guilt is evident and the presumption great. However, after hearing argument and reviewing the memoranda and transcript filed herein, we believe that despite the determination as to proof of guilt, this matter should be returned to the Superior Court to afford the hearing justice the opportunity to exercise his discretion on the question of bail pending trial in accordance with our rulings in Fountaine v. Mullen, 117 R.I. 262, 366 A.2d 1138 (1976) and State v. Abbott, 113 R.I. 430, 322 A.2d 33 (1974).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is hereby remanded to the Superior Court so that the hearing justice may exercise his discretion on the question of bail as herein provided.

SHEA, J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This case comes before us on a petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein petitioner seeks admission to bail pending his trial on robbery and murder charges. A Superior Court judge has denied bail, having determined that the state had met its burden of establishing that proof of petitioner’s guilt is evident and the presumption great. However, after hearing argument and reviewing the memoranda and transcript filed herein, we believe that despite the determination as to proof of guilt, this matter should be returned to the Superior Court to afford the hearing justice the opportunity to exercise his discretion on the question of bail pending trial in accordance with our rulings in Fountaine v. Mullen, 117 R.I. 262, 366 A.2d 1138 (1976) and State v. Abbott, 113 R.I. 430, 322 A.2d 33 (1974).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is hereby remanded to the Superior Court so that the hearing justice may exercise his discretion on the question of bail as herein provided.

SHEA, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 A.2d 142, 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodge-v-moran-ri-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack