Knowing and Voluntary Decision

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 the decision of the Appeals Panel should be reversed because she was unable to knowingly and voluntarily refuse to submit to a chemical test. However, the Court concluded that the defendant only raised this argument in passing and failed to allege either that § 31-27-2.1 requires a refusal to be made knowingly and voluntarily, or that a provision of constitutional law was violated. Accordingly, the Court declined to judge the validity of the defendant’s argument and sustained the violation. Colleen Lawrence v. State of Rhode Island (RITT Appeals Panel), A.A. No. 13 -139 (April 29, 2014).pdf

Knowing and Voluntary Decision

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).  Defendant claimed that, as a result of an accident in which his head had gone “partially through the windshield,” he was unable to make a knowing and voluntary decision about whether to submit to a chemical test.  The trial magistrate ruled that the defendant bore the burden of proving his inability to make a knowing and voluntary decision and held that the defendant had failed to meet that burden.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s burden-shifting approach was improper.  The District Court agreed that the trial magistrate’s burden-shifting approach was improper, holding that the burden of proof always stays with the State, but nonetheless upheld the finding of violation.  The District Court noted that the trial magistrate had found the testimony of the officers to be more credible than that of a trauma surgeon expert witness as to the issue of the defendant’s cognitive ability at the time of refusal.  Holding that an appellate body “lacks the authority to assess witness credibility or to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge concerning the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”  Consequently, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.

Michael Petrarca v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 11-33 (March 21, 2012).pdf

Knowing and Voluntary Decision

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 his refusal to submit was involuntary and that the officer failed to ascertain whether the emergency personnel had administered medication that affected his ability to understand or comprehend. The Court held that there was no evidence that suggested the defendant was administered medication or that his ability to understand or comprehend was affected. Further, the officer had no duty to inquire into whether any medication was administered to the defendant. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.Regent Nicholas v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0208 (April 14, 2011).pdf

Knowing and Voluntary Decision

Defendant was charged with violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The trial court held that the defendant could not knowingly and voluntarily refuse to submit because of his inability to understand English and dismissed the charge. Upon the State’s appeal of the dismissal, the Appeals Panel then remanded the case to the trial court for lack of findings of fact and law to support its decision. Defendant now appeals the decision of the Appeals Panel. Here, the Court held that the Appeals Panel did not abuse its discretion when remanding the case. The record shows that the trial magistrate did not provide sufficient findings of fact or law to support the dismissal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the finding of the Appeals Panel that the decision of the trial magistrate was not supported by substantial, probative, and reliable evidence. The Court then reversed the order of the Appeals Panel remanding for a new hearing. The Court held, unless the same trial magistrate is available, the case must be remanded for a new trial.

State of Rhode Island v. Samang Phim, A.A. No. 003-125 (May 20, 2004).pdf