Appeals Panel
08/25/2010
City of Warwick v. Michael Petrarca, C.A. No. T10-0033 Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). Defendant claimed that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for suspicion of DUI and, as a result, the violation should be dismissed because the initial arrest was unlawful. The Court held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant had operated a vehicle under the influence because the officer observed that the defendant’s vehicle had struck a utility pole, the defendant was sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, his face and clothes were bloodied, he emitted an odor of alcohol, he had bloodshot and watery eyes, and a witness informed the officer that the defendant had been coming from a bar in Coventry, R.I. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. City of Warwick v. Michael Petrarca, C.A. No. T10-0033 (August 25, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/25/2010
City of Warwick v. Michael Petrarca, C.A. No. T10-0033 Credibility
Credibility Determinations
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that, the trial magistrate’s findings turned on a credibility determination and it would be impermissible for the Appeals Panel to second guess the trial judge’s “impressions as he… observe[d] [the officer’s and the doctor’s testimony][,] listened to [their] testimony [and]…determine[d]…what to accept and what to disregard[,]…what…[to] believe[] and disbelieve[].” Environmental Scientific Corp. v. Durfee, 621 A.2d 200, 206 (R.I. 1993). Since the defendant presented no new evidence besides that presented at trial to support his argument that he did not knowingly and voluntarily refuse to submit to the chemical test, the Court found no error of law by the trial court and sustained the violation.
City of Warwick v. Michael Petrarca, C.A. No. T10-0033 (August 25, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/25/2010
City of Warwick v. Michael Petrarca, C.A. No. T10-0033 Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that “[t]he State, in presenting [the officer’s] informed and experience observations of Appellant’s demeanor, alertness and responsiveness, met its burden. If there was something medically defective with Appellant regarding his motor skills, or cognitive ability to understand what was read to him from the Rights form, it most certainly laid ‘peculiarly with him.’ Therefore, the burden of proving as much did as well.” Since the state proved all the necessary elements and the defendant was unsuccessful in refuting the state’s assertions, the defendant suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, the violation was sustained.
Noonan, M Concurring. Concurs with the majority opinion that the decision of the trial magistrate should not be disturbed. However, he believes that the court walks a dangerous line by shifting the burden of proof with regard to statutory elements on a motorist who is the target of a state endorsed prosecution. According to Rule 17 of Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedures, “[t]he burden of proof shall be on the prosecution to a standard of clear and convincing evidence.” Combining the rules of procedure with the shifting burden test promotes uncertainty to those who appear before the tribunal. When we have a clear rule like Rule 17, adopting this mixed approach is improper.
City of Warwick v. Michael Petrarca, C.A. No. T10-0033 (August 25, 2010).pdf