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). At trial, the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the state’s non-compliance with discovery order was denied. However, since a copy of a videotape had not been produced for the defense, the trial magistrate allowed for a continuance or the recall of witnesses after the tape was produced. Here, the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a dismissal because her attorney had seen the tape, and the state had a limited opportunity to comply with the order and eventually did comply with it. Furthermore, the remedy for the delay was within the trial court’s discretion under Rule 11 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Additionally, the remedies the trial magistrate put forth did not constitute an abuse of that discretion. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining the charged violation against the defendant.
Noonan M., dissenting: The magistrate believes the charge should have been dismissed because of the Warwick Police Department’s contemptuous behavior in ignoring an order of the court for 19 months. Furthermore, the trial magistrate misapplied Rule 12 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure and the defendant did all that was required of her under Rule 11. Therefore, the trial magistrate’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion and the case should have been dismissed.
*Note: On appeal, the District Court reversed the majority and dismissed the charge against the defendant.
City of Warwick v. Nicole Cianci, C.A. T 09-0015-1 (December 9, 2009).pdf