Due Process

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-5 (overtaking on the right). The Defendant argued that his due process rights were compromised because the Officer testified to a different location from the location in the summons. The Panel held that the fact that the Defendant did not have notice of the precise location of the violation did not compromise his due process rights because the exact location was not an essential element of the charged violation. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Aaron Desjarlais, C.A. T08-0107 (September 24, 2008).pdf