District Court
10/18/2005
Jimmie Boisvert v. RITT, A.A. No. 05-61 Insurance
Operating without Insurance
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 § 31-47-9 (operation without proof of insurance). The Court held that the citing officer’s testimony that the defendant was unable to provide proof of insurance was sufficient to prove that the defendant had committed the offense. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide any proof of insurance at trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
Jimmie Boisvert v. RITT, A.A. 05-61 (October 18, 2005).pdf
District Court
10/18/2005
Jimmie Boisvert v. RITT, A.A. No. 05-61- Coersion by Officer
Coercion by Officer
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (operation without proof of insurance). The defendant claimed that the arresting officer coerced him into refusing the test by telling him that if he refused then he would only go to court a few times and the charge would be dismissed. To the contrary, the officer testified that over his ten years of policing he has never offered any legal advice. The Court held this was substantial, probative, and reliable evidence to support the trial magistrate’s decision that the defendant was not coerced by the arresting officer. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant.
Jimmie Boisvert v. RITT, A.A. 05-61 (October 18, 2005).pdf
District Court
10/18/2005
Jimmie Boisvert v. RITT, A.A. No. 05-61-Penalty
Penalty
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 § 31-47-9 (operation without proof of insurance). The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he operated his vehicle without insurance and held that the trial court acted within its statutorily proscribed discretion by suspending the defendant’s license for four months. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the violations against the defendant.
Jimmie Boisvert v. RITT, A.A. 05-61 (October 18, 2005).pdf