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

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel 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 arresting officer’s testimony establishing three events occurring at 1:38a.m. rendered the officer’s testimony incredible. The Court held that the trier of fact is entitled to make decisions regarding the credibility of witnesses. As such the magistrate’s decision to credit the officer’s testimony was not clearly erroneous. The Court affirmed the Appeals Panel decision and held these facts provided reasonable grounds to administer a field sobriety test.

George Fayad v. State of Rhode Island A.A. No. 13-103.pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). After producing a deficient sample, the trooper instructed the defendant how to properly take the test for a second time. The defendant then failed to blow into the mouthpiece as instructed and the trooper advised the defendant that he would be charged with refusal. After a review of the entire record, the Court held that there was substantial, probative, and reliable evidence to sustain the charge against the defendant. Since the decisions of the trial judge and the Appeals Panel were not clearly erroneous, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.

Abel Pedroso v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-133 (December 3, 2009).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-3-18 (failure to display a registration plate), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-5 (operating without insurance). The arresting officer gave detailed testimony describing the defendant failing all three field sobriety tests. Defendant’s only evidence to rebut the officer’s testimony was the testimony of a passenger with a limited view of the defendant who stated that the defendant was “doing alright” when performing the tests. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the charge. Furthermore, only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.Samuel Livermore v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-61 (January 7, 2008).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways). Defendant contends that the trial judge gave weight to the state’s evidence and did not give weight to his own evidence. However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.Richard Dilorio v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 08-20 (July 23, 2008).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant argues that he was not given an opportunity to make a confidential phone call. However, the officer testified that the defendant was afforded the right to make a confidential phone call, but asked the officer to enter the room to answer the questions of the person defendant was talking to. The Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses and, accordingly, affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendantJohn McLoughlin v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 02-68 (August 8, 2008).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-1 (right half of road), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-17-6 (yielding to emergency vehicles). Defendant argued that the arresting officer was not credible because there were inconsistencies in his testimony and he could not remember the name of the Notary Public who notarized his affidavit. However, the Court held the only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.John Ferri v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 08-83 (August 12, 2008).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and § 31-15-3 (passing of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions). The defendant argued that he was not intoxicated and his medication caused him to appear to be intoxicated. Furthermore, the bartender where the defendant had been drinking on the night in question corroborated that he was not intoxicated. However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.

Michael Jeff v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 08-65 (December 3, 2008).pdf

Credibility Determinations

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 § 31-15-1 (right half of road). The defendant claimed that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in crediting the officer because of inconsistencies between his testimony and his report.  However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. Paul Young, A.A. No. 04-84 (January 12, 2006).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the trial court’s decision to dismiss the violations of  R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and §31-17-5 (entering a private road or driveway). Defendant argued that all of the elements of R.I.G.L. 1956 §31-27-2.1 must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the state failed to meet its burden. The District Court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record showing that the officer had asked the defendant to submit to a chemical test. Further, the fact that the officer wrote “refused to sign” on the Rights for Use at Station form and the defendant admitted on the record that he did not take the chemical test was sufficient evidence that the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision and remanded the case back to the trial magistrate.

State of Rhode Island v. Michael Netro, A.A. No. 06-25 (August 24, 2006).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The defendant claimed that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in crediting the officer because of inconsistencies between his testimony and his report.  However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.

David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 (February 2, 2006).pdf

Credibility Determinations

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs). Defendant claimed that the officer’s testimony was not credible and that, therefore, the Appeals Panel erred in failing to overturn his conviction. However, the District Court held that only the fact-finder may asses the credibility of witnesses. Accordingly, the Court held that the Appeals Panel’s decision was not clearly erroneous and sustained the violation against the defendant.Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 (April 21, 2004).pdf