admission violation in Rhode Island

2008Sitko v. Jastrzebski , 68 R.I. 207 , 210 , 27 A.2d 178 , 179 (1942).

2008Sitko v. Jastrzebski , 68 R.I. 207 , 210 , 27 A.2d 178 , 179 (1942).

2004Sitko v. Jastrzebski, 68 R.I. 207 , 210 , 272 A.2d 178 , 179 (1942).

2004Sitko v. Jastrzebski, 68 R.I. 207 , 210 , 272 A.2d 178 , 179 (1942).

2000Gagner v. Strekouras, 423 A.2d 1168 (R.I. 1980) is not dispositive of the issue.

2000I Certified Question 1 “In view of State v. Timms, 505 A.2d 1132 (R.I.1986), should R.I.Gen.Laws § 31-27-2(c) be interpreted to preclude, in a case involving an alleged violation of R.I.Gen.Laws § 31-27-2.2 (driving under the influence, death resulting), the admission at trial of the results of breathalyzer, blood or urine tests at trial, when the breath, blood or urine samples were seized without the defendant’s consent and pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant?” In a felony prosecution for driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, death resulting, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 31

2000I would not bar admission of that evidence based on the questionable dicta found in State v. Timms, 505 A.2d 1132 (R.I.1986), dicta that was later unceremoniously canonized in State v. St.

1937L.: “Under this latitudinous provision, the door is thrown wide open for the admission of the defense of discharge based on any act of the parties under any provision of a statute or any rule of law or equity.” The defendant’s contention on this point is also supported by Citizens Bank of Senath v. Douglass, 178 Mo. App. 664 , 161 S. W. 601 (1913).

1937L.: “Under this latitudinous provision, the door is thrown wide open for the admission of the defense of discharge based on any act of the parties under any provision of a statute or any rule of law or equity.” The defendant’s contention on this point is also supported by Citizens Bank of Senath v. Douglass, 178 Mo. App. 664 , 161 S. W. 601 (1913).