District Court
03/18/2015
Marek Krzaczek v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0099 (March 18, 2015)
Credibility Determinations
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficiently credible to prove the refusal case to the standard of clear and convincing evidence because, though there was evidence presented by the Officer that indicated he had reasonable grounds to believe the Defendant was under the influence, there were discrepancies in the testimony of the Officer that made his testimony not credible. The District Court noted that the Court’s role is limited to determine whether the Panel was clearly erroneous in its decision. The Court held that though the Officer had admittedly “made a mess” of his testimony in a District Court trial because, he claimed, he had not adequately reviewed his police report, the trial judge had the discretion to believe the testimony and, because the testimony was competent evidence, the trial judge was not clearly erroneous by relying on it. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.
Marek Krzaczek v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0099 (March 18, 2015).pdf
District Court
03/18/2015
Marek Krzaczek v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0099 (March 18, 2015)
Procedure
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the District Court erred by refusing to consider the impeachment value of the District Court transcript. The District Court, however, agreed with the Appeals panel that the trial judge did allow the Defendant to use the transcript in the Officer’s impeachment, noting that the trial judge told defense counsel she would permit him to use the transcript for impeachment and defense counsel actually did use the transcript in the cross-examination of the Officer. Since the trial judge specifically commented on the impeachment value of the Officer’s prior testimony, the District Court held that the Court did not commit an error. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.
Marek Krzaczek v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0099 (March 18, 2015).pdf
District Court
03/18/2015
Marek Krzaczek v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0099 (March 18, 2015)
Collateral Estoppel
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the doctrine of collateral estoppel required the trial judge to dismiss the refusal case because a District Court judge had previously dismissed the related drunk-driving case, apparently on the grounds that the Officer’s testimony was not sufficiently credible. The Court noted that of the three required elements of estoppel, the first element of privity and second element of a final judgment on the merits were not at issue because the City of Pawtucket prosecuted the drunk-driving case on behalf of the State and because the dismissal of the drunk–driving charge ended the case. The Court held that the third element – the identity of the issues –was not established because the charges of drunken driving and refusal have different elements and different standards of proof. As such, the Court held that the State was entitled to proceed on the refusal citation despite the dismissal of the drunk–driving charge. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.
Marek Krzaczek v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0099 (March 18, 2015).pdf