State v. Jennings, 75-241-C
| Decision Date | 06 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-241-C,75-241-C |
| Citation | 117 R.I. 291,366 A.2d 543 |
| Parties | STATE v. Bryan William JENNINGS. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is an appeal by the defendant from a conviction in Superior Court adjudging him guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G.L.1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 31-27-2, as amended.
A complaint and warrant were filed in District Court and transferred to Superior Court for trial. On December 28, 1971, defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the breathalyzer test alleging that the warrantless search and seizure was unconstitutional under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution.
The record before us indicates that nothing further transpired until January 4, 1974, when defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The docket contains no record of any hearing on the motion to suppress and no explanation for the time lapse of over two years between the two motions. From the decision of the trial justice if appears, however, that the motion to suppress was denied, and the motion to dismiss was denied on January 17, 1974. After another unexplained lapse of some 18 months, the case came to trial on July 8, 1975, on which date defendant was adjudged guilty and a decision by a Superior Court justice was rendered, and a judgment of conviction was entered from which defendant seasonably filed his appeal to this court.
Before us, defendant first argues that G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-7-3(c) is unconstitutional as it infringes on his immunity to unlawful searches and seizures. He contends that the constitutional standard for warrantless arrests is based on the common law wherein in officer may arrest a person without a warrant only if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed or is committing a felony or has committed or is committing a misdemeanor in the officer's presence. He argues that § 12-7-3(c) fails to meet this standard and is an infringement of the rights guaranteed by R.I. Const. art. I, §§ 6 and 23 and by the due process clause of the U.S.Const. amend. XIV.
The defendant contends that his arrest was illegal because it was made on the basis of an alleged offense constituting a misdemeanor which was not committed in the presence of the arresting officers. (Driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor is a misdemeanor under § 31-27-2(c).) Even if § 12-7-3(c) is constitutional, defendant contends that there was no probable cause to believe he was in flight, a necessary prerequisite to warrantless arrests for misdemeanors under § 12-7-3(c).
The defendant is also contesting the constitutionality of § 31-27-2.1, as amended, the so-called 'implied consent statute' which in essence says that consent to a breathalyzer test is implied by the act of driving a motor vehicle on the highway. The defendant asserts that it is a violation of due process to 'coerce' him into taking a breathalyzer test since the alternative would be to lose his operator's license for six months. Section 31-27-2.1. He further argues that the mailing of the results of the breathalyzer test should have been by registered or certified mail in accordance with § 31-2-18 rather than by ordinanry first class mail as noted in § 31-27-2(b)(3), and therefore evidence of the test should not have been admitted at trial.
At this point we direct attention to the fact that procedure in appeals to this court from Superior Court is governed by the Supreme Court Rules.
The record contains no transcript either of the trial or of the motions to suppress or to dismiss. Indeed the only reference to any testimony or evidence is contained in the decision of the trial justice wherein he recited his recollection of testimony given at the hearings. The decision of the trial justice is the only transcript or record ordered and filed by defendant. Such a record in our opinion cannot be construed as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Providence v. Jeremiah
...the proceedings in the court below, we are unable to consider the issues raised by [the] defendant's appeal."), State v. Jennings, 117 R.I. 291, 294, 366 A.2d 543, 545 (1976). There are still other cases expounding on the subject including Notarantonio v. Notarantonio, 941 A.2d 138, 150 (20......
-
State v. Udin
...on defendant's new-trial motion constitutes an adequate record from which we can resolve the issue. 20 Compare State v. Jennings, 117 R.I. 291, 294, 366 A.2d 543, 545 (1976). At that hearing in review of the evidence, the trial justice raised the factual issue of whether the defendant knew ......
-
Bustamante v. Wall
...assertion.3 Accordingly, we discern no merit to this claim. See State v. Pineda, 712 A.2d 858, 861 (R.I.1998); State v. Jennings, 117 R.I. 291, 294, 366 A.2d 543, 545 (1976) (party seeking court's review must provide so much of the record as required to allow court to pass upon alleged erro......
-
State v. Gardiner
...record of the proceedings in the court below, we are unable to consider the issues raised by defendant's appeal." State v. Jennings, 117 R.I. 291, 294, 366 A.2d 543, 545 (1976). Although it is true that defendant failed to produce "page 15" of the instructions, he nevertheless provided an a......