Evidence

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.2 (“refusal to submit to chemical test”) and § 31-22-21.1 (“presence of open alcoholic beverage”). Defendant argued that the trial record was incomplete.  At trial, the defendant attempted to play a video of the defendant at the police station. After several failed attempts to get the CD to play, the magistrate played the video on his personal computer off the record. The defendant contends that this video contained something that would change the outcome of this case and that it is important that the Appeals Panel view this video. Defendant contends that Campos-Orrego v. Rivera, 175 F.3d 89 (1st Cir. 1990), allowed the defendant to supplement the record with the video tape. The Appeals Panel found that Rivera also provides that if the Defendant fails his duty to furnish an appellate court with the raw materials necessary in the due performance of the appellate task then the court may scrutinize the merits of the case insofar as the record permits. Since the Defendant failed to move the video into evidence after the trial court viewed the video, the defendant failed in his duty to preserve the issue for appeal. Therefore, the Appeals Panel proceeded based only on the facts provided by the record. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court was affirmed.

Town of Hopkinton v. Daniel A. Buck, No. T15-0037 (August 25, 2016).pdf