Opinion ID: 2204979
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: `Request To Charge

Text: `In view of the remarks of Mr. Fazzano called to the Court's attention, the defendant respectfully requests the Court to charge specifically and emphatically that the defendant is not required to  `(1) Put in any defense whatever. `(2) Is not required to take the stand or testify and no inferences can be made therefrom. `(3) That the jury should disregard the statement to that effect by Mr. Fazzano.' However, we find that no such exception was taken or noted in the transcript. In another place and before the general charge of the court defendant had objected to a certain portion of the state's argument and had requested merely that the substance thereof be quoted in the record. But at that time the court was not asked to make any ruling in the matter or to charge specially, and no exception to any ruling of the court was then asked by defendant or noted. It is clear that defendant had merely objected to an alleged portion of the state's argument without asking for and receiving a ruling or decision from the court to which an exception could properly be taken. State v. Farr, 29 R.I. 72; State v. Riddell, 38 R.I. 506; State v. Hathaway, 52 R.I. 492. After completion of the arguments and at the conclusion of the charge, to which no exception was taken and which fully and specifically instructed the jury as to the law on defendant's right to refrain from testifying, the transcript shows the following: The Court: Is there anything you would like to have me say, Mr. McElroy? (Mr. McElroy approached the Bench and made an off the record statement.) The Court: No. I think I have made it plain to you, Mr. Foreman and members of the jury. I reiterate it that of course the burden is on the State to prove its case. The defendant does not have to prove he is innocent. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as I have described it to you that he is guilty. I think I have made it plain, but in the event I haven't, I do reiterate that to you. Now, Mr. McElroy, I will give you an exception to Mr. Fazzano's reference to the other two men. (Defendant's Exception Noted.) Up to and including this colloquy there is no mention whatever in the transcript of any request, written or oral, to charge specially in connection with the alleged improper arguments as set forth in exception 13. The transcript merely shows that defendant's counsel made an off the record statement, the nature of which is not stated. The additional charge by the court which followed immediately contains no statement prejudicial to defendant, but on the contrary reiterated the necessity for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the essentials of the crime, an instruction that previously had been given in full. The concluding statement of the court did not note defendant's exception to any ruling or decision but merely to Mr. Fazzano's reference to the other two men. That is consistent with the substance of defendant's previous request as it appears earlier in the transcript. In our judgment the instant record cannot be extended reasonably to include a request for a specific charge as stated in the bill of exceptions but which does not appear in the transcript, an adverse ruling thereon by the court, and an exception to such ruling or decision by defendant. In the peculiar circumstances we are of the opinion that there is no exception in the transcript which corresponds to exception 13 as stated in the bill of exceptions, and the case is governed in that respect by the law stated in the above-mentioned cases. The defendant finally contends under exception 14 that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The trial justice in a rescript summarized the evidence, pointed out the importance of the credibility of the witnesses, and expressly stated that he was satisfied that Umberto Colangelo had sufficient opportunity to recognize the defendant and that he was correct in his positive identification. The court further stated that he was favorably impressed with the appearance of Umberto Colangelo and with his apparent intelligence, and that there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict which he independently approved. We find nothing in the rescript to suggest that the trial justice misconceived his duty or the applicable law, or that he overlooked any material evidence. It is not necessary to state in detail the evidence which would justify the jury and the trial justice in believing Umberto and in refusing to accept as credible the evidence submitted by witnesses to prove an alibi for the defendant. There was ample evidence, if believed, to show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the person who assaulted Umberto Colangelo on the morning of April 6, 1949 and had then gone through a part of the house for the purpose of committing a robbery. From our examination of the transcript we cannot say that the trial justice was clearly wrong in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial. This exception is overruled. All of the defendant's exceptions are overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court.