State v. Rose
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
311 A.2d 281 (1973)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
On April 1, 1970, Henry Rose (defendant) hit a pedestrian, David McEnery, with his car as McEnery was crossing the street. McEnery was thrown onto the hood of Rose's car. Rose stopped momentarily, McEnery rolled off the hood of the car, and Rose then drove away from the scene of the accident. McEnery’s body was later found underneath Rose’s abandoned car. Rose was charged with leaving the scene of the accident, death resulting, and also with negligent manslaughter. At trial, the only medical witness testified that McEnery could have died at the moment of impact, but he also could have died several minutes later. The medical witness could not state McEnery’s exact time of death. Rose moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on both counts, but the motion was denied. The trial judge instructed the jury that there was no evidence of Rose's culpable negligence in striking McEnery with the vehicle. The judge further instructed that to find Rose guilty of manslaughter, the jury would need to find that McEnery was alive immediately after being struck by Rose's vehicle, and that Rose's conduct after the accident was culpably negligent. Rose was convicted on both counts. On appeal, Rose challenged the denial of his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
