District Court
11/10/2016
James Sullivan v. City of Woonsocket, A.A. No. 16-69 (November 10, 2016)
Procedure
Defendant appealed the Appeals Panel’s decision sustaining defendant’s violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (“prima facie limits”). Defendant argued that the judge improperly limited the defendant’s cross-examination of the officer with respect to his ability to make a visual determination of a vehicle’s speed. Following State v. Oliveira, 730 A2d. 20, 24 (R.I. 1999), the District Court held that limitations on cross-examinations are generally within the trial court’s discretion. Since the evidence in the case involved a speed determination based upon a laser device, the District Court concluded that the defendant was examining the officer about an irrelevant matter and, consequently, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s Decision
James Sullivan v. City of Woonsocket, A.A. No. 16-69 (November 10, 2016).pdf
District Court
11/10/2016
James Sullivan v. City of Woonsocket, A.A. No. 16-69 (November 10, 2016)
Radar/Laser Calibration
Defendant appealed the Appeals Panel’s decision sustaining defendant’s violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (“prima facie limits”). Defendant argued that the court should adopt a different rule with respect to the admissibility of laser results than the rule set forth in State v. Sprague, 322 A2d. 36 (R.I. 1974), which involved the use of a radar device. The District Court rejected that argument, holding that Sprague “announced a rule for the admissibility of the speed readings emitted by speed calculating devices,” not just for radar devices. Accordingly, the District Court rejected the Defendant’s proposed rule for laser devices and affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision.
James Sullivan v. City of Woonsocket, A.A. No. 16-69 (November 10, 2016).pdf