Appeals Panel
02/09/2011
State of Rhode Island v. Robert Plasse, C.A. No. T10-0081 Inference
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-3-12 (visibility of plates). The Court held that Arden Engineering Co. v. E. Turgeon Const. Co., 197 A.2d 743, 746 (R.I. 1964), required that reviewing courts accept reasonable inferences drawn from the original trier of facts. Although no numerical distance was provided by the officer as to how far he was when he was unable to read the defendant’s license plate, the trial magistrate inferred from the testimony presented that the defendant’s display of plates violated the statute. Therefore, Court sustained the violation.
State of Rhode Island v. Robert Plasse, C.A. No. T10-0081 (February 9, 2011).pdf
Appeals Panel
02/09/2011
State of Rhode Island v. Robert Plasse, C.A. No. T10-0081 Visibility of Plates
Visibility of Plates
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-3-12 (visibility of plates). The Court held that, although the defendant might have reasonably assumed the license plate cover’s were legal because it was purchased at a nationally recognized automotive parts dealer, State v. Foster, 46 A.2d 833, 835 (R.I. 1990) reminds us that “ignorance of the law is not an excuse for an individual to violate it, even if the individual tried to learn the law and was misled by another.” The Court held that buying the plate covers from a nationally recognized automotive parts dealer failed to exonerate the defendant and, therefore, sustained the violation.
State of Rhode Island v. Robert Plasse, C.A. No. T10-0081 (February 9, 2011).pdf