State v. Yarborough

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Yarborough

636 A.2d 1333, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 36, 1994 WL 33932

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 3, 1994

DocketNo. 93-366-C.A.

StatusPublished

This text of 636 A.2d 1333 (State v. Yarborough) 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. Yarborough, 636 A.2d 1333, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 36, 1994 WL 33932 (R.I. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument January 27, 1994, pursuant to an order that had directed both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The ruling of the trial justice admitting into evidence documentary records from the telephone company concerning certain calls made by the defendant constituted an abuse of discretion in light of the fact that such evidence had not been disclosed pursuant to requests made in accordance with Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, this evidence was not disclosed to counsel for the defendant until the jury was about to be impaneled. Even though this failure to disclose was not deliberate, we believe that allowing the state to present this evidence virtually without warning placed the defense at a significant disadvantage which could not be cured by a continuance within the period of the trial. See State v. Darcy, 442 A.2d 900 (R.I.1982). We further believe that this evidence was highly prejudicial to the defendant.

Consequently the defendant’s appeal is hereby sustained. The judgment of conviction is vacated. The papers in the ease may be remanded to the Superior Court with directions to grant the defendant a new trial.

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

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument January 27, 1994, pursuant to an order that had directed both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The ruling of the trial justice admitting into evidence documentary records from the telephone company concerning certain calls made by the defendant constituted an abuse of discretion in light of the fact that such evidence had not been disclosed pursuant to requests made in accordance with Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, this evidence was not disclosed to counsel for the defendant until the jury was about to be impaneled. Even though this failure to disclose was not deliberate, we believe that allowing the state to present this evidence virtually without warning placed the defense at a significant disadvantage which could not be cured by a continuance within the period of the trial. See State v. Darcy, 442 A.2d 900 (R.I.1982). We further believe that this evidence was highly prejudicial to the defendant.

Consequently the defendant’s appeal is hereby sustained. The judgment of conviction is vacated. The papers in the ease may be remanded to the Superior Court with directions to grant the defendant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 A.2d 1333, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 36, 1994 WL 33932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-yarborough-ri-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack