District Court
11/08/2007
John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 Radar Calibration
Radar/Laser Calibration
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that there is no six-month time period in which the accuracy of radar units must be certified. Furthermore, where the officer testified to his training and experience with radar units and that a tuning fork test had been performed on the radar unit the day it was used, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the charge against the defendant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of § 31-14-2. John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 (November 8, 2007).pdf
District Court
11/08/2007
John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 Findings of Fact
Trial Judge’s Findings of Facts
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that the trial judge must articulate the findings of facts with sufficient particularity so that an intelligent review may be made. Here, the Court held that the trial judge had done so, considering a majority of the Appeals Panel stated that an intelligent review could be made. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 (November 8, 2007).pdf
District Court
11/08/2007
John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 Phone Call
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that the defendant’s rights were not substantially prejudiced by the officer’s presence in the room while defendant made his confidential phone call because the prosecution did not use any information obtained by the officer during the defendant’s call. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 (November 8, 2007).pdf
District Court
11/08/2007
John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 Discovery
Discovery
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that the defendant was not prejudiced when the prosecution did not provide the defense with the arresting officer’s notes on the back of the Rights form, which only included the defendant’s basic information. Accordingly, dismissal was not warranted, and the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 (November 8, 2007).pdf
District Court
11/08/2007
John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 Probable Cause
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that where the defendant had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, emitted a strong odor of alcohol, and failed the two field sobriety test that were administered, reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol existed. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.John Duffy v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-34 (November 8, 2007).pdf