Appeals Panel
01/17/2014
Town of Barrington v. Stephen Day, C.A. No. T13-0011 Constitutional Issues
Constitutional Issues
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant argued that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial. However, the Court held that there is no such right to a jury trial for an infraction of the motor vehicle code. A defendant is only entitled to a jury trial if they would have had such a right at the time the Constitution was adopted or if the offense is of a nature that requires a jury trial. See Calore Freight Systems, Inc. v. Dept. of Trans., 576 A.2d 1214 (R.I. 1990). Therefore, because the motor vehicle code did not exist at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1842, nor did any similar statute then exist, and the fines imposed under the motor vehicle code are definite and without discretion, the defendant had no right to a jury trial on the charge of violating R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-2-2.1. However, the Court went on to dismiss the charge against the defendant on other grounds. Town of Barrington v. Stephen Day, C.A. No. T13-0011 (January 17, 2014).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/17/2014
Town of Barrington v. Stephen Day, C.A. No. T13-0011 Rights for Use at Scene
Rights for Use at the Scene
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant argued that the officer failed to testify at trial, by more than a bare assertion, which specific rights were read to him at the scene before he refused to submit, and further, that the rights for use card was not submitted into evidence. The Court held that in order to satisfy the requirements of § 31-27-3, the actual rights for use at the scene card must be admitted into evidence unless the officer is capable of reciting the language of the card from memory. Here, the requirements of §31-27-3 were not fulfilled because the card was not submitted and the officer made only a bare assertion that he had read the defendant the rights for use card at the scene. Accordingly, the Court held that the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous and dismissed the charge against the defendant.Town of Barrington v. Stephen Day, C.A. No. T13-0011 (January 17, 2014).pdf