Court Opinion

ID: 9727419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:36:09.006258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:37.491850
License: Public Domain

Baker, J.,
dissenting. I am unable to agree with the *96opinion of the majority of the court. This is the same case which was recently before us on certified constitutional questions of doubt and importance. See State v. Fowler, 79 R. I. 16. The case is now here after a trial in the superior court.
William E. Powers, Atty. Gen., Raymond J. Pettine, Ass’t Atty. Gen., for State.
Aram A. Arabian, John J. McGrane, Hayden C. Covington, of New York Bar, for defendant.
In my dissent from the opinion filed in the previous case I set out reasons for my view of the section of the ordinance in question. I am still of the opinion that section 11 of chapter 149 of the ordinances of the city of Pawtucket enacted August 17, 1916 is unconstitutional as being contrary to the pertinent provisions of the first and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States. It is unnecessary to restate such reasons as they can be readily ascertained from an examination of the above-mentioned dissent. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the defendant should be adjudged not guilty and should be discharged.
Capotosto, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Baker.