District Court
06/01/2015
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015)
Evidence
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s improperly admitted the inspection report because it related to a different machine than the one used in the Defendant’s breath test. The Defendant relied on State v. Miller, N3-2009-0223A, 2010 WL 390915 (R.I. Super. 01/29/10), where a judge granted a motion to suppress the results of a chemical breath test because the serial numbers on the test machine and in the report were different. Here, the Court distinguished Miller, holding that here there was no ambiguity concerning which machine was used because there was only one machine at the barracks. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial magistrate’s evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and upheld the decision to sustain the violation.
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015).pdf
District Court
06/01/2015
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015)
Sworn Report
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in finding there was a sworn report because the submitted report contained inaccuracies. The Court noted the prevailing law holding that the State is required to prove that a sworn report was created, thereby acknowledging that prior District Court opinions on this issue were no longer good law. The Court went on to hold that the State does not need to prove that the report is accurate in all significant particulars because Link v. State, 633 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1993), explained that the State is not bound by the contents of the sworn report. Accordingly, despite the inaccuracies in the sworn report, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015).pdf
District Court
06/01/2015
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015)
Operation of Motor Vehicle
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in finding that the Trooper had reasonable grounds to believe that he had been driving under the influence of alcohol because the Trooper never saw him drive. The Court here held that the Trooper had reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant had operated his vehicle because the Defendant himself had told the Trooper that the Defendant had driven. The Court noted in a footnote that the corpus delicti rule, which might prevent the introduction into evidence of this admission, does not apply in civil cases. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015).pdf
District Court
06/01/2015
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015)
Deficient Sample
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). In a case in which the Defendant blew into the machine and the machine registered a “deficient sample,” the Defendant argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the machine had been certified and calibrated because the Trooper was unable to recall the machine’s serial number. The Court held that because there was only one machine at the barracks and the machine was found to be in good working order days before, the trial magistrate’s did not err in finding that the State proved the machine was in good working order. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015).pdf
District Court
06/01/2015
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015)
Physical Inability to Submit to a Chemical Test
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that it was improper to subject him to sanctions for refusal because he was unable to provide a sufficient sample due to injuries to his back and head. The Court outlined that due process prohibits penalizing a defendant for failing to perform an act that he or she does not have the physical ability to perform. In such a situation, however, it is the motorist who bears the burden of proving such a physical inability “except where such inability is obvious.” The Court agreed with the Appeals Panel and held that because there was no obvious inability and because the medical report the Defendant submitted did not link the Defendant’s injuries to an inability to perform the breath test, the Defendant did not meet his burden of proof. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015).pdf
District Court
06/01/2015
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015)
Constructive Refusal to Submit
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the Appeals Panel erred because he agreed to take the chemical test and made a good faith effort to do so. The Trooper testified that, while the Defendant initially agreed to take the test, he did not cooperate with the instructions in order to give a sufficient sample. The Defendant testified that he tried to cooperate and take the test. The Court noted that to sustain the charge, it must find that the decision was supported by legally competent evidence. The Court held that because the trial magistrate relied on the video of the test and the Trooper’s testimony, which he found to be credible, to find as a matter of fact that the Defendant willfully failed to follow instructions, there was sufficient evidence to prove the refusal element by conduct. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.
Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015).pdf