6 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1980–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Berkergreen2 sentences1987State v. Berker, 120 R.I. 849, 857 , 391 A.2d 107, 112 (1978) (analyzing predecessor to statute involved in this case, identical in its relevant terms). 1980In State v. Berker, R.I., 391 A.2d 107 (1978), we considered an appeal of a conviction for driving under the influence 3 and noted that in driving-under-the-influence trials G.L.1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 31-27-2 controls the admissibility of the results of a breathalyzer test in evidence and that the implied-eonsent statute, § 31 — 27-2.1, applies only to administrative license-revocation proceedings. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Keangreen2 sentences1998Section 31-27-2(c) “controls the admissibility into evidence of the results of a breathalyzer test in a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence.” In re Kean, 520 A.2d 1271, 1273 (R.I.1987). 1998Section 31-27-2(c) "controls the admissibility into evidence of the results of a breathalyzer test in a criminal prosecution for driving under the influence." In re Kean, 520 A.2d 1271, 1273 (R.I.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Link v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Section 31-27-2(e) provides in relevant part: “In any criminal prosecution for a violation of [driving under the influence of alcohol], evidence as to the amount of intoxi- eating liquor * * * in the defendant’s blood at the time alleged as shown by a chemical analysis of the defendant’s breath * * * shall be admissible and competent, provided that evidence is presented that the following conditions have been complied with: “(1) The defendant has consented to the taking of the test upon which the analysis is made.” As we have observed in the past, the language of 31-27-2.1 “is clear and unambi 1998Section 31-27-2(c) provides in relevant part: "In any criminal prosecution for a violation of [driving under the influence of alcohol], evidence as to the amount of intoxicating *212 liquor * * in the defendant's blood at the time alleged as shown by a chemical analysis of the defendant's breath * * shall be admissible and competent, provided that evidence is presented that the following conditions have been complied with: "(1) The defendant has consented to the taking of the test upon which the analysis is made." As we have observed in the past, the language of 31-27-2.1 "is clear and unambig | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Widergren v. Charettegreen2 sentences1991Widergren v. Charette, 110 R.I. 124, 132 , 290 A.2d 858, 862 (1972) (citing with approval Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)), we espoused the view that a motorist’s privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the introduction into evidence of the results of a breathalyzer test submitted to by him. 1991Widergren v. Charette, 110 R.I. 124, 132 , 290 A.2d 858, 862 (1972) (citing with approval Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)), we espoused the view that a motorist’s privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the introduction into evidence of the results of a breathalyzer test submitted to by him. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lusi
green
2 sentences1998We reject this argument because it conflicts with this Court’s holdings in State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251 (R.I. 1998), and State v. Lusi 625 A.2d 1350 (R.I.1993), and the plain language of § 31-27-2. 1 In Lusi this Court concluded that the trier of fact may draw an inference from the results of a breathalyzer test that a defendant’s BAC at the time of the test was the same as at the time of the driving. 625 A.2d at 1355 . 1998We reject this argument because it conflicts with this Court’s holdings in State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251 (R.I. 1998), and State v. Lusi 625 A.2d 1350 (R.I.1993), and the plain language of § 31-27-2. 1 In Lusi this Court concluded that the trier of fact may draw an inference from the results of a breathalyzer test that a defendant’s BAC at the time of the test was the same as at the time of the driving. 625 A.2d at 1355 . | 2 | 1996–1998 |
State v. DiCicco
green
2 sentences1998We reject this argument because it conflicts with this Court’s holdings in State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251 (R.I. 1998), and State v. Lusi 625 A.2d 1350 (R.I.1993), and the plain language of § 31-27-2. 1 In Lusi this Court concluded that the trier of fact may draw an inference from the results of a breathalyzer test that a defendant’s BAC at the time of the test was the same as at the time of the driving. 625 A.2d at 1355 . 1998In DiCicco , we stated that “if a test results in a BAC of less than 0.10 percent, a conviction under §§ 31-27-2 or 31-27-2.2 shall be sustained if the totality of other competent evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was under the influence of ‘intoxicating liquor, drugs, toluene, or any controlled substance as defined in chapter 28 of title 21, to a degree which rendered such person incapable of safely operating a vehicle.’ ” DiCicco, 707 A.2d at 256-57 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1991Widergren v. Charette, 110 R.I. 124, 132 , 290 A.2d 858, 862 (1972) (citing with approval Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)), we espoused the view that a motorist’s privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the introduction into evidence of the results of a breathalyzer test submitted to by him. 1991Widergren v. Charette, 110 R.I. 124, 132 , 290 A.2d 858, 862 (1972) (citing with approval Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966)), we espoused the view that a motorist’s privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the introduction into evidence of the results of a breathalyzer test submitted to by him. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.