District Court
02/02/2006
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 Procedure
Procedure
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that having a Special Assistant Attorney General provide the final argument following questioning by a Rule 9 law student did not violate Rule 2 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, which provides that the tribunal shall provide for the fair administration of civil trials. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant.
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 (February 2, 2006).pdf
District Court
02/02/2006
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No.05-103-Credibility Determinations
Credibility Determinations
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The defendant claimed that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in crediting the officer because of inconsistencies between his testimony and his report. However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 (February 2, 2006).pdf
District Court
02/02/2006
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103-Coercion by Officer
Coercion by Officer
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the trooper’s testimony that he did not coerce or try to persuade the defendant in any way in making his decision whether or not to submit to the chemical test was sufficient evidence to affirm the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence pointing to coercion. Since the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 (February 2, 2006).pdf
District Court
02/02/2006
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the dismissal of a laned roadway violation charge of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 was not grounds for dismissal of the refusal charge. The officer’s observation of the defendant crossing the double yellow line was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, even though the charge of violation of § 31-15-11 was dismissed. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 (February 2, 2006).pdf