From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Tessier

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Oct 20, 1965
213 A.2d 699 (R.I. 1965)

Summary

recognizing "the hornbook principles that every criminal statute must provide for a penalty and that a conviction for a violation of a statute containing none cannot stand"

Summary of this case from State v. Maxie

Opinion

October 20, 1965.

PRESENT: Roberts, Paolino and Joslin, JJ.

1. CRIMINAL LAW. Ordinance Prohibiting Reveling. Failure to Provide Penalty. Every criminal statute must provide for a penalty and a conviction for a violation of a statute containing none cannot stand.

2. CRIMINAL LAW. Judicial Notice. Municipal Ordinances. Doctrine of judicial notice is unavailable for ascertainment of whether in fact a sanction can be found in another section of municipal ordinances which would be applicable to the section as it appeared of record and which prohibited disorderly conduct without fixing a penalty.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT charging violation of ordinance, before supreme court on exceptions to rulings by and decision of Carrellas, J., holding defendant guilty following trial in superior court. Decision reversed without regard to exceptions briefed and argued and case remitted to superior court with direction to dismiss complaint and discharge defendant.

J. Joseph Nugent, Attorney General, Corinne P. Grande, Special Counsel, for State.

Aram K. Berberian, for defendant.


This is a criminal complaint charging that the defendant violated section 11 of chapter 40 of the revised ordinances of the city of Woonsocket in that on September 11, 1962 he "did behave in a disorderly manner, to wit, loud and abusive language * * *. To the annoyance and disturbance of a portion of the peaceable inhabitants of said City * * *." After a trial to a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury, the defendant was found guilty of the offense as charged. The case is here on a bill of exceptions to that decision and to other rulings made during the trial.

Neither raised before us, nor indeed the subject of an exception, was the question of whether prosecution for the alleged violation is barred for the reason that the ordinance as it appears on the record before us does not fix a penalty. That question finds its answer in the hornbook principles that every criminal statute must provide for a penalty and that a conviction for a violation of a statute containing none cannot stand. State v. Pirlot, 20 R.I. 273; State v. Fair Lawn Service Center, Inc., 20 N.J. 468; 1 Wharton, Criminal Law Procedure (12th ed.) § 10, p. 14. Bishop in his treatise of criminal law (9th ed.) at § 6, p. 3, says: "Indeed, law, without punishment for its violation, is in the nature of things impossible."

Footnote No. 1. "Sec. 11 — No person shall revel, use obscene language, quarrel or commit any manner of mischief or otherwise behave in a disorderly manner in any street, highway, gangway, or in any other public place in the city or near any dwelling house or other building therein to the disturbance or annoyance of the peaceful inhabitants thereof or any portion of them, or shall aid, assist, encourage or promote the same to be done by any other person or persons."

Nor can invocation of the doctrine of judicial notice assist the state for that doctrine is unavailable for the ascertainment of whether in fact a sanction can be found in another section of the municipal ordinances. Tessier v. LaNois, 97 R.I. 414, 198 A.2d 142; Town of Lincoln v. Cournoyer, 95 R.I. 280, 186 A.2d 728.

In the circumstances, the interests of justice made it initially the obligation of the superior court and now make it the duty of this court to dismiss the complaint. State v. Kilday, 99 R.I. 209, 206 A.2d 537.

For the reason stated we reverse the decision below without regard to the exceptions briefed and argued and remit the case to the superior court with direction to dismiss the complaint and discharge the defendant.


Summaries of

State v. Tessier

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Oct 20, 1965
213 A.2d 699 (R.I. 1965)

recognizing "the hornbook principles that every criminal statute must provide for a penalty and that a conviction for a violation of a statute containing none cannot stand"

Summary of this case from State v. Maxie

In Tessier, this Court declared that "law, without punishment for its violation, is in the nature of things impossible."

Summary of this case from State v. Delbonis

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Panadero v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Lynch v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Caterino v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Aguilar v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Ortiz v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Carpenter v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Gonder v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Merida v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Morris v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Buchanan v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Silva v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from McKay v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Jensen v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Guzman v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Feliciano v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Esposito v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Burgos v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Rushlow v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Perry v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Cole v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Thibodeau v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Mattatall v. State

dismissing a defendant's conviction for violating a city ordinance because "the ordinance as it appears on the record before [the court] d[id] not fix a penalty"

Summary of this case from Powell v. State
Case details for

State v. Tessier

Case Details

Full title:STATE vs. ROGER P. TESSIER

Court:Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date published: Oct 20, 1965

Citations

213 A.2d 699 (R.I. 1965)
213 A.2d 699

Citing Cases

State v. Delbonis

"It has been long recognized that criminal statutes must provide for a penalty and a conviction for violation…

Wilson v. State

To that end, our Supreme Court has made it clear that if a statute does not provide a penalty, a conviction…