State v. Lisa Ricker, 252 A.3d 721

Background

On May 31, 2016, Lisa Ricker met with Coventry Officer Jadine Ferri in the station; shortly after Ricker left, Ferri followed and stopped Ricker for slow, swerving driving.
Ferri observed signs of impairment, conducted three standardized field sobriety tests; Sgt. Gebo conducted two additional tests; Ferri arrested Ricker.
At the station Ricker submitted to breath testing; two Intoxilyzer 9000 readings were .083 and .080.
Ferri’s police report included a notarized “refusal affidavit” stating Ricker refused the test, though Ferri testified at trial that Ricker consented; defense counsel sought to cross-examine Ferri on this inconsistency.
The trial justice sustained the State’s objection limiting that cross-examination as potentially confusing; jury convicted Ricker on the BAC theory (.08); trial justice denied Ricker’s motion for a new trial and sentenced her.
On appeal Ricker challenged (1) limitation of cross-examination, (2) denial of new trial based on weight of the evidence/margin of error, and (3) two legal errors (jury instruction re breath test and verdict form presenting two theories).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ricker)	Held
Whether limiting cross-examination about the notarized refusal affidavit violated Ricker’s confrontation/right to impeach witness credibility	Limitation was within trial justice’s discretion under Rules of Evidence; affidavit would confuse jury and offered little probative value	The affidavit contradicted Ferri’s trial testimony and was highly probative of Ferri’s credibility; exclusion impaired Ricker’s confrontation rights	Affirmed — trial justice did not abuse discretion; sufficient impeachment occurred elsewhere and exclusion was not prejudicial
Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence given Intoxilyzer margin of error	The BAC plus other admissible evidence (observations, sobriety tests) supported conviction beyond a reasonable doubt	Margin of error could place results below statutory threshold and thus required a new trial	Affirmed — trial justice acted as thirteenth juror, considered margin of error, found evidence credible and sufficient; denial of new trial proper
Whether the jury instruction permitting inference from timely breath test improperly shifted reliability from jury	Instruction used permissive language (“may draw the inference”), not mandatory; proper as given	Instruction could be read to remove reliability from jury and improperly bolster test results	Waived on appeal — no contemporaneous objection; in any event instruction was permissive
Whether the verdict form listing two alternative theories (impairment and BAC) confused jury	Presentation of both theories was proper given complaint and charge; defendant had opportunity to seek bill of particulars	Verdict sheet confused jury because complaint only specified BAC theory	Waived on appeal — defendant did not preserve objection and did not seek bill of particulars; trial court reasonably read complaint to allow both theories

Key Cases Cited

State v. Drew, 919 A.2d 397 (R.I. 2007) (cross-examination and confrontation principles)
State v. Danis, 182 A.3d 36 (R.I. 2018) (trial-justice discretion to limit cross-examination)
State v. Ogoffa, 159 A.3d 1043 (R.I. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard for limiting cross-examination)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (wide latitude to exclude evidence of marginal relevance)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Confrontation Clause and cross-examination limits)
State v. Lusi, 625 A.2d 1350 (R.I. 1993) (State may rely on breath test plus other admissible evidence)
State v. McKenna, 709 A.2d 1027 (R.I. 1998) (margin-of-error of breathalyzer does not automatically defeat conviction)
State v. Gumkowski, 223 A.3d 321 (R.I. 2020) (trial justice as thirteenth juror when ruling on new-trial motion)
State v. Hunt, 137 A.3d 689 (R.I. 2016) (preservation/raise-or-waive rule for jury instructions and verdict form)