Evidence

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that her statements to the police should have been suppressed because she was detained at the time of her questioning at the scene of her accident and should have been informed of her rights. The Panel held that no admonition of the Defendant’s rights were required until the Defendant was handcuffed and the Officer placed her in the police cruiser. The Panel observed that the record indicated that the Officer read the Defendant her rights once she was detained. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Erin Lawrence, C.A. T08-0049 (April 23, 2008).pdf

Evidence

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate abused his discretion by admitting into evidence the hearsay statements of a civilian witness who did not testify at the trial, violating her constitutional rights to confrontation and cross-examination. The witness owned the vehicle into which the Defendant collided, but neither witnessed the accident nor observed the Defendant’s operation of the vehicle prior to the accident. The trial magistrate admitted his statements to the police into evidence pursuant to the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule under Rhode Island Rules of Evidence 803(1). To qualify as a present sense impression, the statement must be made while the event is occurring or with only a slight lapse of time. The Panel held that because some time had elapsed between the accident and the Officer’s conversation with the witness, the application of Rule 803(1) was questionable. However, the Panel continued that the trial magistrate also stated on several occasions that the statements were not offered to prove the truth of the matter. Accordingly, the statements did not meet the definition of hearsay under Rule 801(c) and were admissible to prove facts used by the Officer to determine probable cause to arrest the motorist. The Panel concluded that the trial magistrate’s citation of Rule 803(1) instead of Rule 803(c) was a harmless error. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Erin Lawrence, C.A. T08-0049 (April 23, 2008).pdf

Evidence

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that the Officer’s reports were inaccurate and unreliable because they listed different accident times. The Panel held that the defects in the Officer’s report did not rise to the level of a reversible error and the divergent accident times were likely the result of the lack of a third-party witness to the accident. The Panel continued that, though the exact time of the accident may be difficult to discern, the time had little bearing on whether the Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated and refused a chemical test. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Erin Lawrence, C.A. T08-0049 (April 23, 2008).pdf

Evidence

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate should have considered the Officer’s sworn report as substantive evidence of his prior inconsistent statements and erred in finding that the Officer’s sworn reports had no viability after the preliminary suspension hearing. The Panel held that the trial magistrate did not err because the omissions in the Officer’s sworn report did not rise to the level of prior inconsistent statements and because the Officer’s sworn report was admitted for the limited evidentiary purpose of showing compliance with § 31-27-2.1 Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Erin Lawrence, C.A. T08-0049 (April 23, 2008).pdf