District Court
11/19/2009
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-140 Radar Calibration
Radar/Laser Calibration
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 Appeals Panel was not clearly erroneous in holding that the operational efficiency of the radar gun was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method, that there was testimony regarding the officer’s training and experience with a radar gun, and that the radar gun was calibrated within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the violation against the defendant.
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-140 (November 19, 2009).pdf
District Court
11/19/2009
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-140 Identification
Identification
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The defendant argued that the state failed to prove the violation by clear and convincing evidence because there was no in-court identification by the prosecution that he was the operator of the vehicle. The Court held that the evidence on record showed that it was highly probable that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle and, thus, the state met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was the operator. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation against the defendant.
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-140 (November 19, 2009).pdf
District Court
11/19/2009
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No.09-140 Discovery
Discovery
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 it was within the discretion of the trial magistrate whether or not to dismiss the charge because of the trooper’s failure to comply with a discovery order. Furthermore, the trooper’s non-compliance with the discovery order did not have a material or prejudicial effect on the defendant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation against the defendant.
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-140 (November 19, 2009).pdf
District Court
11/19/2009
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-140 Credibility
Credibility
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The defendant claimed that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in crediting the testimony of the citing officer over his testimony because the officer appeared to be reading from a paper when testifying and made a mistake as to the color of defendant’s vehicle. However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation against the defendant.
George Phillip v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-140 (November 19, 2009).pdf