6th Amendment

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.IG.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  On appeal the defendant claimed that he was not afforded his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to question another officer that was on scene at the time of the traffic stop.  The District Court held that the defendant did not request the court to subpoena the second officer.  Consequently, the defendant did not perfect the issue for appeal under the “Raise or Waive” rule.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.  

State of Rhode Island v. James Sullivan, A.A. No. 11-048 (September 2, 2011).pdf

6th Amendment

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  The Court held that the defendant’s 6^th Amendment rights were not violated because the officer never testified to what the other officer said, instead testifying to what he witnessed as the operator of the radar gun.  Thus, the Court found that the trial judge had every right to assess the credibility of the officer’s statements. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. James Sullivan, A.A. No. 11-048 (September 2, 2011).pdf