District Court
01/12/2006
Paul Young, A.A. No. 04-84 – Physical inability to submit
Physical Inability to Submit to a Chemical Test
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and § 31-15-1 (right half of road). Following Porcaro v. R.I.T.T., A.A. No. 01-12 (DeRobbio, C.J.), the Court held that the burden of proof is on the motorist to show that he or she was physically incapable of submitting to a chemical test. Absent an obvious incapacitating injury, the defendant must provide expert testimony corroborating the injury and the injury’s effect on taking a chemical test. Here, the evidence offered by the defendant was vague and only showed the existence of an injury, not how the injury would prevent him from taking a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charges against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Paul Young, A.A. No. 04-84 (January 12, 2006).pdf
District Court
01/12/2006
State of Rhode Island v. Paul Young, A.A. No. 04-84- Credibility
Credibility Determinations
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and § 31-15-1 (right half of road). The defendant claimed that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in crediting the officer because of inconsistencies between his testimony and his report. However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Paul Young, A.A. No. 04-84 (January 12, 2006).pdf
District Court
01/12/2006
Paul Young, A.A. No. 04-84- Reasonable grounds/Probable Cause
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-1 (right half of road). The Court held that although the trial judge referred to the standard being used as reasonable suspicion, he did in fact apply the proper reasonable grounds standard. The Court held that the officer had reasonable grounds because the defendant drove erratically, crossed over the double yellow line, emitted the odor of alcohol on his breath, had red watery eyes, had difficulty producing his registration, had three empty beer cans in his car, and failed the field sobriety tests. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violations against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Paul Young, A.A. No. 04-84 (January 12, 2006).pdf