State v. Francisco Pacheco

Citations

• 161 A.3d 1166
• 2017 WL 2622780
• 2017 R.I. LEXIS 87

Syllabus

The defendant, Francisco Pacheco (Pacheco or defendant), appealed from a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court the basis of this appeal was that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should have barred the state from prosecuting a chemical breath test refusal under G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1. Specifically, the defendant contended that the ultimate issues of fact relevant to the chemical refusal were already decided in the Traffic Tribunal in connection with a preliminary refusal infraction. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply under the circumstances because the two refusals did not involve identical issues. The Court also determined that the preliminary refusal was not \actually litigated\ in the Traffic Tribunal because it was dismissed for a lack of evidentiary foundation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court acknowledged the differences between a civil infraction in the Traffic Tribunal and a criminal charge in Superior Court, but the Court did not base its decision upon these differences.