Burden of Proof

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Court held that “[t]he State, in presenting [the officer’s] informed and experience observations of Appellant’s demeanor, alertness and responsiveness, met its burden. If there was something medically defective with Appellant regarding his motor skills, or cognitive ability to understand what was read to him from the Rights form, it most certainly laid ‘peculiarly with him.’ Therefore, the burden of proving as much did as well.” Since the state proved all the necessary elements and the defendant was unsuccessful in refuting the state’s assertions, the defendant suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, the violation was sustained.

Noonan, M Concurring. Concurs with the majority opinion that the decision of the trial magistrate should not be disturbed. However, he believes that the court walks a dangerous line by shifting the burden of proof with regard to statutory elements on a motorist who is the target of a state endorsed prosecution. According to Rule 17 of Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedures, “[t]he burden of proof shall be on the prosecution to a standard of clear and convincing evidence.” Combining the rules of procedure with the shifting burden test promotes uncertainty to those who appear before the tribunal. When we have a clear rule like Rule 17, adopting this mixed approach is improper.

City of Warwick v. Michael Petrarca, C.A. No. T10-0033 (August 25, 2010).pdf