Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-13-1 (2026)

Right to release pending trial on giving of recognizance

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every person who is held on any criminal process to answer to any indictment, information, or complaint against him or her shall be released upon giving recognizance with sufficient surety or sureties before a justice of the supreme or superior court or before a justice of the district court, when the complaint is pending in that court or the person is held to answer to that court, in the sum named in the process, if any has been named in it, and if none is named, then in any sum that the justice shall deem reasonable, to appear before the court where the indictment, information, or complaint is pending against him or her, or to which he or she may be bound over to appear, to answer to the indictment, information, or complaint, and to answer to it whenever called upon so to do, and abide the final order of the court, and in the meantime keep the peace and be of good behavior. Any justice may take the recognizance in any place within the state, and the recognizance shall be returned to the court to which the accused has recognized to appear.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1977–1987 · leading case: Mello v. Superior Court, 370 A.2d 1262 (R.I. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mello v. Superior Court, 370 A.2d 1262 (R.I. 1977). · cites it 5× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-13-1. We fail to see how the imposition of these conditions is unconstitutional, since they are integrally related to the right afforded and are but reasonable attempts by the Legislature and the judiciary to balance the interest of the accused…”

Bridges v. Superior Court, 396 A.2d 97 (R.I. 1978). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-13-1; Super, R. Crim. P, 46(d), We answered each question in the affirmative.”

State v. Demers, 525 A.2d 1308 (R.I. 1987). “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-13-1. The Superior Court trial justice concluded that Demers’s conduct in going to the Family Court justice’s home and refusing to leave the premises after being asked to do so constituted a violation of this provision.”

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.