 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lombardi.3/22/1999
ing his bicycle because it was too far to walk and there was no indication in the record that there was any place nearby from which the defendant could call someone to come and pick him up. Allowing the defendant to walk and push his bicycle or to ride his bicycle home from the Cranston Street area where the stop had occurred at that late hour and in the defendant's inebriated condition would have seriously endangered not only the defendant but the other travelers who could have been driving in that area at that time. Officer Martin was confronted by an exigent situation and his response thereto did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
We note that the defendant at no time ever indicated that he objected to Officer Martin's offer to have him driven home or that he did not want to ride with the police, nor did he object to the officer's warning that he would have to be searched before getting into the police vehicle. In fact, when the casual pat-down search first began, it coincided with the defendant's volunteering the fact of his possession of cocaine, which Martin testified he never would have discovered if the defendant had not told him about it. Accordingly, under these facts, we cannot say that the pat-down search was unlawful or that the cocaine should be suppressed. The motion Justice did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
II
Motion In Limine
The defendant's last claim of error is that the motion Justice erred in denying the defendant's motion in limine to prohibit the state from introducing, for the purposes of impeachment, evidence of the defendant's fourteen-year-old convictions for possession of burglary tools, breaking and entering and possession of marijuana. We disagree. It is within the discretion of the motion Justice to determine whether prior convictions are admissible for the purposes of impeachment. G.L. 1956 § 9-17-15; R.I.R.Evid. 609. Moreover, pursuant to Rule 609, "the determination of what is remote so as to create undue prejudice in a particular case remains an issue properly left to the discretion of the trial Justice." State v. Simpson, 606 A.2d 677, 680 (R.I. 1992). Our thorough examination of the suppression hearing record discloses nothing to suggest that the motion Justice abused that discretion.
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed, and the papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|