State v. Fortes

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Fortes

284 A.2d 588, 109 R.I. 335, 1971 R.I. LEXIS 1063

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 23, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.2d 588 (State v. Fortes) 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

State v. Fortes, 284 A.2d 588, 109 R.I. 335, 1971 R.I. LEXIS 1063 (R.I. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Alfred A. Fortes, Jr. was tried and convicted before a Superior Court justice sitting without a jury on an indictment charging him with unlawful possession and control of dexamyl, a barbiturate, in violation of G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §21-29-3(d). He was sentenced to serve a term of two years, but execution was stayed and [336]*336he was admitted to bail on personal recognizance pending the prosecution of a bill of exceptions to this court.

Following oral arguments in this court, we examined the record and ascertained that the case had been transmitted here by the clerk of the Kent County Superior Court, even though a bill of exceptions had not been filed and the transcript of the testimony had not been allowed. The question now is what should we do with the case. If the only deficiency were that the record had come here without the transcript having first been allowed, we would hold the case until its truth had been established in this court as provided for by G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-24-22; then, depending on the circumstances, we would either take the case on the briefs, or order reargument. State v. Raposa, 108 R. I. 4, 271 A.2d 463 (1970); Warwick Municipal Employees Credit Union v. McAllister, 100 R. I. 268, 214 A.2d 380 (1965); Spearing v. Silverman, 100 R. I. 110, 211 A.2d 629 (1965); State v. Brown, 99 R. I. 582, 209 A.2d 705 (1965).

In this case, however, the deficiency is far more serious— there is neither a bill of exceptions nor any jacket entry stating that one was filed.¹ Generally, the filing of a bill of exceptions in the manner prescribed by §9-24-17 has been considered a condition precedent to review in this court, and an appellant who failed to file was deemed to be in the same position he would have been in had he not noticed [337]*337his intention to prosecute a bill of exceptions. Russillo v. Ambrosino, 78 R. I. 42, 45, 78 A.2d 854, 855 (1951).

Richard J. Israel, Attorney General, Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Attorney General, Henry Gemma, Jr., Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. Norman E. D’Andrea, for defendant.

Notwithstanding the general rule, we are reluctant to take such drastic action where defendant’s liberty is at stake without first affording him an opportunity to be heard. The case therefore is reassigned to the current argument calendar for March 6, 1972. Briefs and arguments shall be confined to the question of what consequences flow from the defendant’s failure to file a bill of exceptions.

It is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

Alfred A. Fortes, Jr. was tried and convicted before a Superior Court justice sitting without a jury on an indictment charging him with unlawful possession and control of dexamyl, a barbiturate, in violation of G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §21-29-3(d). He was sentenced to serve a term of two years, but execution was stayed and [336]*336he was admitted to bail on personal recognizance pending the prosecution of a bill of exceptions to this court.

Following oral arguments in this court, we examined the record and ascertained that the case had been transmitted here by the clerk of the Kent County Superior Court, even though a bill of exceptions had not been filed and the transcript of the testimony had not been allowed. The question now is what should we do with the case. If the only deficiency were that the record had come here without the transcript having first been allowed, we would hold the case until its truth had been established in this court as provided for by G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-24-22; then, depending on the circumstances, we would either take the case on the briefs, or order reargument. State v. Raposa, 108 R. I. 4, 271 A.2d 463 (1970); Warwick Municipal Employees Credit Union v. McAllister, 100 R. I. 268, 214 A.2d 380 (1965); Spearing v. Silverman, 100 R. I. 110, 211 A.2d 629 (1965); State v. Brown, 99 R. I. 582, 209 A.2d 705 (1965).

In this case, however, the deficiency is far more serious— there is neither a bill of exceptions nor any jacket entry stating that one was filed.¹ Generally, the filing of a bill of exceptions in the manner prescribed by §9-24-17 has been considered a condition precedent to review in this court, and an appellant who failed to file was deemed to be in the same position he would have been in had he not noticed [337]*337his intention to prosecute a bill of exceptions. Russillo v. Ambrosino, 78 R. I. 42, 45, 78 A.2d 854, 855 (1951).

Richard J. Israel, Attorney General, Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Attorney General, Henry Gemma, Jr., Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. Norman E. D’Andrea, for defendant.

Notwithstanding the general rule, we are reluctant to take such drastic action where defendant’s liberty is at stake without first affording him an opportunity to be heard. The case therefore is reassigned to the current argument calendar for March 6, 1972. Briefs and arguments shall be confined to the question of what consequences flow from the defendant’s failure to file a bill of exceptions.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.2d 588, 109 R.I. 335, 1971 R.I. LEXIS 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fortes-ri-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack