State v. Francisco Pacheco

We respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority in this case. We do not quibble with the majority’s explanation of the law on collateral estoppel, nor do we disagree with its interpretation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.3(a) (the preliminary breath test statute) or § 31-27-2.1 (the chemical test statute). Moreover, it is our opinion that the majoritys recitation of the facts is, for the most part, accurate. We dissent, however, because we believe that the majority has misapplied the pertinent facts to the law.

As the majority correctly explains, the doctrine of collateral estoppel has three…