Appeals Panel
02/03/2016
Department of Environmental Management v. Marilyn Sheldon, C.A. No. T15-0027 (February 3, 2016)
Summons
The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of Department of Environment and Management Fish and Wildlife Regulation §20-1-12 (feeding wildlife prohibited). The Defendant was issued a ticket for feeding geese in an apartment complex common area and was identified through an eyewitness account and video evidence. The Defendant argued on appeal that the summons was not properly served upon the Defendant. Specifically, the Defendant argued the summons was never handed to her, but instead to her granddaughter, and that she never signed the summons as required by Rhode Island law. The Panel found that there was no legal requirement for signing the summons. The Panel found that personal service was satisfactorily met here, where the Defendant physically refused to receive the summons and the officer handed the summons to her granddaughter, who had been standing next to the Defendant inside the Defendant’s apartment and who remained after the Defendant walked away. See Rosen v. Rosen, 404 A.2d 472, 474 (R.I. 1979). Therefore, the Panel found the summons was properly served on the Defendant and the appeal was denied.
Department of Environmental Management v. Marilyn Sheldon, C.A. No. T15-0027 (February 3, 2016).pdf
Appeals Panel
02/03/2016
Department of Environmental Management v. Marilyn Sheldon, C.A. No. T15-0027 (February 3, 2016)
Identification
The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of Department of Environment and Management Fish and Wildlife Regulation §20-1-12 (feeding wildlife prohibited). The Defendant was issued a ticket for feeding geese in an apartment complex common area and was identified through an eyewitness account and video evidence. The Defendant argued on appeal that the violation issuing officer could not properly identify the Defendant in the video because the video did not show the Defendant’s face and, therefore, the officer could only assume it was the Defendant. The Panel noted that when a “witness has personal knowledge of the defendant, the witness’s subsequent identification of the defendant is reliable.” See State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541, 547 (R.I. 2004). Here, the Panel found the officer had spoken with the Defendant in person over the same issue in the prior year and had personal knowledge of the defendant. Therefore, the officer was able to properly identify the Defendant. Furthermore, the trial magistrate determined it was the Defendant feeding the geese and the Panel cannot second guess that decision without viewing the evidence. Ultimately, the Panel found the decision was not affected by error of law and supported by legally competent evidence.
Department of Environmental Management v. Marilyn Sheldon, C.A. No. T15-0027 (February 3, 2016).pdf
Appeals Panel
02/03/2016
Department of Environmental Management v. Marilyn Sheldon, C.A. No. T15-0027 (February 3, 2016)
Procedure
The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of Department of Environment and Management Fish and Wildlife Regulation §20-1-12 (feeding wildlife prohibited). The Defendant was issued a ticket for feeding geese in an apartment complex common area and was identified through an eyewitness account and video evidence. The Defendant argued on appeal that the trial transcript was inaccurate. The Panel noted when a conflict of personal recollection arises against the written transcript, the transcript is viewed as accurate and the court must accept that what is found in the transcript was said in open court. See Schafer v. Thurston Mfg. Co., 137 A.2d 5 (R.I. 1927). Here, the Panel found such a conflict existed and, under Schafer, the transcript must be viewed as accurate. Additionally, the Panel noted the alleged inaccuracy in the transcript did not affect the decision. The Panel denied the appeal.
Department of Environmental Management v. Marilyn Sheldon, C.A. No. T15-0027 (February 3, 2016).pdf