State v. DeOliveira

• Decision Date: 22 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2004-149-C.A.,2004-149-C.A.
• Citation: 972 A.2d 653
• Parties: STATE v. Daniel DeOLIVEIRA.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

972 A.2d 653

STATE v. Daniel DeOLIVEIRA.

No. 2004-149-C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 22, 2009.

Aaron L. Weisman, Stephen Regine, Department of Attorney General, Attorney General, for Plaintiff.

Paula Rosin, Office of Public Defender, for Defendant.

Present: GOLDBERG, Acting C.J., FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, ROBINSON, JJ., and WILLIAMS, C.J. (ret.).

OPINION

Justice ROBINSON for the Court.

This case arises from a fatal motor vehicle accident which occurred on Interstate 95 in the early hours of January 31, 1999. The defendant, Daniel DeOliveira, appeals from a Superior Court conviction for driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, death resulting. Following his conviction after a jury trial, the defendant was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, with five years to serve and ten years suspended, as well as a five-year license suspension to commence upon his release from state custody. On appeal, the defendant challenges the admissibility of Breathalyzer test results, the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm defendant's judgment of conviction and deny and dismiss the instant appeal.

Facts¹ and Travel

I The Events of January 31, 1999

The tragic motor vehicle collision giving rise to this case occurred on Interstate 95, southbound, on January 31, 1999. The clearest accounts of the incident were provided by three passengers of another vehicle, all of whom witnessed the accident.

The driver of that other vehicle, one Karen Bhatti, testified that she was traveling in a southerly direction in the low-speed (rightmost) lane of Interstate 95 as she approached the Lonsdale Avenue overpass in Pawtucket. Ms. Bhatti observed a white pickup truck² quickly approaching from behind, so she decided to move to the center lane of the three-lane highway. She stated that the pickup truck caught her attention as it approached because at one point she noticed it swerving. Ms. Bhatti further testified that, as the pickup truck passed her on the right, she noticed a stopped Volkswagen Jetta on the right side of the road ahead; the Jetta was positioned partially in the breakdown lane and partially in the low-speed lane. She also testified that she observed a man standing at the open driver's side door of the Jetta.

Ms. Bhatti testified that the white pickup truck swerved towards the immobile Jetta and hit it. She did not recall seeing the brake lights of the pickup truck being illuminated, even though she could clearly see the rear of that vehicle at the time of the accident. Ms. Bhatti testified that she saw the pickup truck strike the victim (viz., the man who had been standing beside the Jetta); the body of the victim lay on the hood of the pickup truck for a few seconds and then was thrown onto the pavement as that vehicle veered back into the rightmost lane of travel.

Ms. Bhatti followed the pickup truck until it stopped approximately one-half mile from the scene of the accident. She then stopped, exited her own vehicle, and walked back to the victim. She testified that other witnesses already were on the scene, one of whom took the victim's pulse and declared him to be dead. Ms. Bhatti further testified that defendant then walked over to the body and that the person who had attempted to take the victim's pulse said to defendant: "Look what you did. You killed him." Ms. Bhatti testified that defendant, who she said was having some difficulty remaining upright, replied: "I didn't do it." Emergency rescue personnel responded to the scene shortly thereafter. The victim, who was later identified as Santos Juarez, age twenty-two, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Another prosecution witness, Cynthia Bootier, who was a passenger in Ms. Bhatti's minivan, also witnessed the accident. Ms. Bootier testified that she saw an apparently brokendown vehicle on the right side of the highway, with a person standing in front of the open door of the vehicle as though attempting to push it. She stated that the light was on in the vehicle and that it was "pretty visible."

Ms. Bootier further testified that a white Chevrolet Blazer passed Ms. Bhatti's van on the right. As the lanes of the interstate curved to the left, the Blazer proceeded straight and "just drove like there was nothing there." Ms. Bootier testified that, as the Blazer struck the disabled vehicle, she observed sparks and flying debris. She further testified that the Blazer continued driving despite having impacted the other vehicle; she added that Ms. Bhatti pursued the Blazer in her van in an attempt to ascertain its license plate number.

According to Ms. Bootier, when the Blazer eventually stopped, Ms. Bhatti's minivan also stopped. Ms. Bootier and the other occupants of the minivan descended from that vehicle and returned to the area of the accident; there she observed the victim lying on the ground.

A third passenger in Ms. Bhatti's vehicle, Diane Smith, also testified at trial. Ms. Smith provided an account of the accident that substantially parallels the testimony of Ms. Bhatti and Ms. Bootier. She testified that she had observed a Jeep-like vehicle behind Ms. Bhatti's van that was "weaving back and forth from the road," prompting Ms. Bhatti to move from the low-speed lane to the center lane of travel. After the accident and the brief pursuit of the Blazer, Ms. Smith also exited Ms. Bhatti's van and walked back to the victim. She testified that defendant joined them at the accident scene; she stated that he "smelled of alcohol and * * * was a little wobbly."

State Trooper Phillip Martin testified that he arrived at the accident scene between 1:20 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. on January 31, 1999. He was met by Pawtucket police and rescue personnel, who had already responded to the scene. At trial, he testified that he observed a heavily damaged grey Volkswagen Jetta parked partially on the merge strip to Interstate 95 southbound at the Lonsdale Avenue on-ramp and partially in the right-most lane of travel. He also observed the victim lying in the lane of travel on the Lonsdale Avenue ramp approximately seventeen feet in front of the Jetta.

Trooper Martin spoke with defendant, who was seated in the back of a Pawtucket police cruiser. Trooper Martin testified that, when he spoke with Mr. DeOliveira, he noticed that his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slow and slurred, and his breath smelled of alcohol. Suspecting that defendant was intoxicated, Trooper Martin asked him to submit to several field sobriety tests, and defendant agreed. Trooper Martin testified that defendant failed all of those tests.

Trooper Martin further testified that he read defendant his Miranda³ rights and placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated. The defendant was then transported to the state police barracks in Lincoln, where he was again informed of his Miranda rights.

According to Trooper Martin's testimony, defendant consented to a Breathalyzer test,⁴ and a two-phase test was performed. Dennis Hilliard, director of the State Crime Laboratory, testified that Mr. DeOliveira's blood alcohol content at 3:08 a.m. (the time of the first test) was 0.164 and that his blood alcohol content was 0.157 at 3:47 a.m. (when the second phase of the test was performed).

In due course, defendant was indicted for driving while intoxicated, death resulting, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.2.

II The Motions to Suppress

Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress certain statements that he made while speaking with police officers—both prior to being read his rights at the scene of the accident and after his arrest. The defendant claimed that he was in custody while seated in the back of the Pawtucket police patrol car and that any statements he made at that time should have been suppressed on the ground that he had not yet been given his Miranda warnings. The defendant further argued that statements which he made at the police station after having been read his rights should also be suppressed because of the earlier improper questioning. The state voluntarily declined to use any of said statements at trial. Accordingly, there is nothing for us to decide with respect to those statements.

The defendant also sought to suppress the results of the Breathalyzer test administered at the state police barracks in Lincoln, arguing that his consent to take the test was invalid because the police failed to inform him that the victim had died and that he would therefore be facing a charge of driving while intoxicated, death resulting—a significantly more serious offense than driving while intoxicated. At the pretrial suppression hearing, Trooper Martin testified that, at some point after the first phase of the Breathalyzer test, but prior to the second phase, defendant had inquired as to the condition of the victim. Although Trooper Martin was aware that the victim was dead, he simply told defendant in response to a question that the victim "was not doing well." Trooper Martin explained that he responded in that manner because he did not want to upset defendant, who appeared to him to be in a "little bit of shock" as a result of the collision and arrest. At the pretrial suppression hearing, defendant testified that, if he had known that the victim was dead, he would have requested that a lawyer be present during the Breathalyzer test or he would have withheld his consent to the test. The trial justice was not persuaded by this argument and concluded that defendant voluntarily consented to the Breathalyzer test because he believed that it would exonerate him.

III The Trial

The defendant's case was tried to a jury in the Superior Court for Providence County from May 9 through May 14, 2001.

In addition to the witnesses whose testimony has already been discussed, the jury also heard the testimony of State Trooper Thomas Peck, who testified in the capacity of one familiar with technical accident...