Identifying the Defendant

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit).  Defendant claimed that she was not properly identified as the operator of the vehicle.  The District Court held that the defendant was identified by the officer of the vehicle and the defendant admitted that she was driving the vehicle.  Accordingly, the Court held that the trial magistrate did not err and sustained the violation against the defendant. 

Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf

Identifying the Defendant

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the trial magistrate’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 he was not properly identified in court and the reversal by the Appeals Panel was unwarranted. The District Court held that the trial magistrate’s decision was clearly erroneous because in his testimony the defendant identified himself as the person taken to the police station on the night in question and the arresting officer identified the defendant in court as the driver of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel 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