Taylor v. Gardiner

4 Citing cases

  1. Advisory Opinion to Governor

    437 A.2d 542 (R.I. 1981)   Cited 11 times

    In this state, "vicinage" has been construed to mean "county." Opinion to the Senate, 108 R.I. at 631 n. 1, 278 A.2d at 854 n. 1 (1971) ( citing Taylor v. Gardiner, 11 R.I. 182 (1875)). Both before and after our State Constitution was adopted, an accused has generally been tried before a jury composed of residents of the county wherein the crime was committed.

  2. Opinion to Senate

    108 R.I. 628 (R.I. 1971)   Cited 18 times
    Providing greater protections under our state constitution than the United States Constitution provides pursuant to the Sixth Amendment

    Vicinage has been construed to mean "county." Taylor v. Gardiner, 11 R.I. 182 (1875). The Court in Williams acknowledged that in Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 18 S.Ct. 620, 42 L.Ed. 1061 (1898), it was decided that the jury referred to in the sixth amendment was a jury "constituted, as it was at common law, of twelve persons, neither more nor less."

  3. State v. Sisson

    58 R.I. 200 (R.I. 1937)   Cited 6 times

    " This court, in Taylor v. Gardiner, 11 R.I. 182, at 183, said that the power conferred upon the court to remove a case from one county to another, "though not lightly to be exercised, ought not to be unreasonably restricted." When the "local prejudice" contemplated by the statute is established by convincing evidence, it is the duty of the court, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to order a removal of the case.

  4. Schultz v. Young

    37 N.M. 427 (N.M. 1933)   Cited 15 times
    In Schultz, our Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision to refuse additional evidence upon being presented with a mere averment by counsel's affidavit.See id. at 430-31, 24 P.2d at 278.

    Although the authorities are not in entire harmony, there is considerable support for the view that, under statutes specifying prejudice as a ground for securing a change of venue, the movant need not set out in his moving affidavit the facts and circumstances upon which the belief of prejudice is based. See Huffman v. State, 66 Ind. App. 105, 117 N.E. 874; Wheeler v. City of Indianapolis, 201 Ind. 415, 166 N.E. 433, 175 N.E. 15; Hay v. Reed, 93 Ind. App. 592, 178 N.E. 873; Preston Nat. Bank v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 142 Mich. 272, 105 N.W. 757; Taylor v. Gardiner, 11 R.I. 182; State v. Yager, 250 Mo. 388, 157 S.W. 557, 558; Hunt v. State, 27 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 16; cf. Newcomb-Buchanan Co. v. Baskett, 14 Bush (Ky.) 658, 659. In Taylor v. Gardiner, supra, the court said in answer to an objection raised to the form of a petition for a change of venue: "The petition alleges that 'by reason of local prejudice and the feeling entertained by the people of said county (i.e. Bristol County), he (i.e. the petitioner) cannot have a full, fair, and impartial trial in said county.'