Freitas v. State

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Freitas v. State

382 A.2d 536, 119 R.I. 936, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 767

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 19, 1978

DocketC. A. No. 77-456

StatusPublished

This text of 382 A.2d 536 (Freitas v. State) 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

Freitas v. State, 382 A.2d 536, 119 R.I. 936, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 767 (R.I. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

This case comes before us on a Rule 9 motion for release pending appeal. For that reason we do not review the action of the trial justice, but rather hear the motion de novo. The record supplied to us set forth the reasons for the trial justice’s denial of bail pending appeal, and although his findings are not binding on us they are entitled to great weight if supported by competent evidence of probative force. See Quattrocchi v. Langlois, 100 R.I. 741, 219 A.2d 570 (1966). On examination of the record supplied by the parties, we find ourselves in agreement with the trial justice’s finding that [937]*937the defendant’s release would pose a threat to the community. Accordingly, we deny the defendant’s motion for release on bail pending appeal.

Schreiber ir Jessup, Ira L. Schreiber, for petitioner. Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, Alfred French Goldstein, Special Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

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

This case comes before us on a Rule 9 motion for release pending appeal. For that reason we do not review the action of the trial justice, but rather hear the motion de novo. The record supplied to us set forth the reasons for the trial justice’s denial of bail pending appeal, and although his findings are not binding on us they are entitled to great weight if supported by competent evidence of probative force. See Quattrocchi v. Langlois, 100 R.I. 741, 219 A.2d 570 (1966). On examination of the record supplied by the parties, we find ourselves in agreement with the trial justice’s finding that [937]*937the defendant’s release would pose a threat to the community. Accordingly, we deny the defendant’s motion for release on bail pending appeal.

Schreiber ir Jessup, Ira L. Schreiber, for petitioner. Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, Alfred French Goldstein, Special Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 A.2d 536, 119 R.I. 936, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freitas-v-state-ri-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack