(a) Whoever shall originate a transmission by facsimile machine, or other telecommunication
device or shall telephone any person repeatedly or cause any person to be telephoned
repeatedly for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying, or molesting the other person
or his or her family, whether or not conversation ensues; or whoever shall originate
a transmission by facsimile machine, or other telecommunication device or shall telephone
any person for the purpose of using any threatening, vulgar, indecent, obscene, or
immoral language over the telephone, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment
for not more than one year, or both.
(b) This section shall not be construed to impose any liability upon providers of telecommunications
services.
Notes of Decisions
Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed against each plaintiff, alleging that they had made crank telephone calls in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-35-17. These complaints were subsequently dismissed under Rule 48(a) of the District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The defendant in Fiske was charged under G.L.1956 § 11-35-17, which had a disjunctive structure; the statute provided that “[wjhoever shall telephone any person repeatedly * * * for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying, or molesting such other person or his family * * *; or…”
State v. DeMagistris, 714 A.2d 567 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 4× “The fourth group involved obscene or harassing telephone calls covered by G.L.1956 § 11-35-17. The defendant was also charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of G.”
In Re Fiske, 367 A.2d 1069 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 5× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 14-1-3(F) 1 by reason of his having harassed and annoyed Gloria Siegel by telephone in violation of §11-35-17. 2 The trial *456 justice found that Fiske had threatened Mrs.”
State v. Castore, 435 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1981).
“” In vacating the delinquency finding, we pointed out that the General Assembly, in adopting § 11-35-17, had created two separate and distinct offenses, both of which criminalize telephoning another for the purpose of either (1) harassing, annoying, or molesting or (2) using…”
State v. Oliveira, 730 A.2d 20 (R.I. 1999).
““In this case, Fiske was charged with a violation of § 11-35-17. That enactment is in the disjunctive.”
Commonwealth v. Richards, 690 N.E.2d 419 (Mass. 1998).
“1997); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-17 (1994), or annoying communication generally, see, e.”
Rivers v. Poisson, 761 A.2d 232 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Poisson entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of making harassing telephone calls in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-35-17. The employers had no knowledge of Poisson’s activities until Rivers filed a report with the Woonsocket Police Department.”
State v. Marshall, 793 A.2d 196 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 11× “The constitutionality of G.L.1956 § 11-35-17, entitled Crank or obscene telephone calls (the statute), is challenged in this appeal.”
Landry (D.R.I. 2025).
· cites it 2× “G.L. § 11-35-17. Detective Gagnon also sought and obtained an Extreme Risk Protection Order and search warrant.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-17(a) — 1 case
State v. Marshall, 793 A.2d 196 (R.I. 2002).
“The constitutionality of G.L.1956 § 11-35-17, entitled Crank or obscene telephone calls (the statute), is challenged in this appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.