Appeals Panel
05/13/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No. T09-0025 Opportunity to Make a Phone Call
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the recitation of the Rights for Use at Scene and Rights for Use at Station cards was sufficient to inform the defendant that he could have an opportunity to make a phone call in accordance with R.I.G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No T09-0025.pdf
Appeals Panel
05/13/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No. T09-0025 Evidence
Evidence
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision to allow testimonial evidence about the breathalyzer cards without the state entering the cards themselves into evidence or offering any proof that the cards were unavailable due to loss, destruction, inaccessibility, or other justifiable cause violated the “best evidence rule” (Rule 1002 in the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence) and constituted an abuse of discretion. However, the Court held that the abuse of discretion constituted harmless error as the violation was supported by other legally competent evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No T09-0025.pdf
Appeals Panel
05/13/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No T09-0025 Right to an Independent Medical Examination
Right to an Independent Medical Examination
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the recitation of the Rights for use at Scene and Rights for Use at Station cards was sufficient to afford the defendant with a reasonable opportunity to be examined by a physician of his choosing, in accordance with § 31-27-3, pursuant to State v. Langella, 650 A.2d 478, 479 (R.I. 1994). The Court held that the lack of evidence of the defendant exercising his right to be examined independently satisfies the state’s burden of proving that the defendant made the decision to forgo the exam. The Court held that there was no evidence in the record to support the defendant’s claim that he exercised his right to an independent medical examination. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No T09-0025.pdf
Appeals Panel
05/13/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No. T09-0025 Discovery
Discovery
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that, although the state failed to account for the breath test cards indicating that the defendant produced a deficient sample, this was not grounds for dismissal. The Court held that the failure to produce the cards did not cause inordinate delay, expense or frustration, and was not part of a pattern of continuous noncompliance with discovery orders. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by not dismissing the charge. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No T09-0025.pdf
Appeals Panel
05/13/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No. T09-0025 Deficient Sample
Deficient Sample
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that where the defendant agreed to submit to a chemical test which produced a deficient sample, the state had the burden to prove that the breathalyzer was certified for accuracy and the person conducting the test was competent to do so, as described in § 31-27-2. Here, the testimony of the arresting trooper and an employee of the Department of Health provided sufficient evidence that the requirements of § 31-27-2 were met. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Abel Pedroso C.A. No T09-0025.pdf