District Court
04/21/2004
Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 Appeal
Right to Appeal
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs). Defendant claimed that the state had no right to appeal because the defendant was exonerated on December 1, 2001, 4 days before an amendment on December 5, 2001, to Rule 21 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, that allowed the state a right to appeal. However, the District Court held that the amendment to Rule 21 did not establish the state’s right to appeal, but only clarified the state’s right to appeal. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 (April 21, 2004).pdf
District Court
04/21/2004
Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 Constructive Refusal
Constructive Refusal to Submit
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs). Defendant claimed that the actions of the police resulted in an “involuntary constructive refusal” charge because he was denied bail on the night of his arrest and, therefore, denied the ability to obtain exonerating evidence. However, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel’s decision was not clearly erroneous because there was evidence on record that the defendant was properly informed of the rights and penalties pursuant to § 31-27-2.1. Furthermore, the Court found that there were no facts to support the defendant’s theory of “involuntary constructive refusal.” Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 (April 21, 2004).pdf
District Court
04/21/2004
Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 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) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs). Defendant claimed that the officer’s testimony was not credible and that, therefore, the Appeals Panel erred in failing to overturn his conviction. However, the District Court held that only the fact-finder may asses the credibility of witnesses. Accordingly, the Court held that the Appeals Panel’s decision was not clearly erroneous and sustained the violation against the defendant.Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 (April 21, 2004).pdf
District Court
04/21/2004
Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 Reasonable Grounds
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs). Defendant claimed that the citing officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and further contended that because he was not penalized for violating § 31-20-9 it could not constitute a basis for the stop. However, the District Court held that reasonable grounds existed to stop the defendant because the officer observed the defendant violate § 31-20-9 when he failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Furthermore, after stopping the defendant, the officer observed indicia of intoxication, sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence, because the defendant slurred his speech, emitted an odor of alcohol from his breath, had bloodshot and watery eyes, was unsteady on his feet, and failed field sobriety tests. The failure of the magistrate to impose a penalty for violating § 31-20-9 does not affect whether reasonable grounds existed for refusal to submit. Accordingly the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 (April 21, 2004).pdf