Evidence

Defendant appealed the decision of the East Providence Municipal Court sustaining Defendant’s charged violation of R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 §31-17-4 (failure to yield). Defendant, driving a motorcycle, had gotten into a motor vehicle accident with a tractor-trailer. At trial, two witnesses testified that Defendant had not obeyed the yield sign immediately prior to the accident. Defendant testified on his own behalf. On appeal, Defendant argued that the Trial Judge did not state the underlying reasons for his rejection of Defendant’s uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony, and that such testimony must be taken as fact under Supreme Court precedent in Jackowitz v. Deslauriers, 162 A.2d 528, 530-31 (1960). The Appeals Panel, however, noted that the two eyewitness accounts directly contradicted Defendant’s testimony, which rendered Jackowitz inapplicable. As a result, the Trial Judge was not required to give his reasons for rejecting Defendant’s testimony. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied Defendant’s appeal and upheld the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Andrew Thomson, No. M16-0011 (February 8, 2018).pdf

Evidence

Defendant appealed the decision of the East Providence Municipal Court sustaining Defendant’s charged violation of R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 §31-17-4 (failure to yield). Defendant, driving a motorcycle, had gotten into a motor vehicle accident with a tractor-trailer. Two witnesses testified that Defendant had not obeyed a yield sign immediately prior to the accident. Defendant argued that the Trial Judge did not properly assert his findings of fact on the record, as required when a trial judge sits as the fact finder. The Appeals Panel noted, however, that the Supreme Court ruling in Notarantonio did not require a judge to “categorically accept or reject each piece of evidence in his decision[.]” Notarantonio v. Notarantonio, 941 A.2d 138, 147 (R.I. 2008). The Trial Judge stated that, after having the opportunity to listen and observe all the witnesses testify, he found the independent witnesses to be very credible and, based on that credibility determination, he found the Defendant guilty. As a result, the Appeals Panel found that the Trial Judge asserted his factual findings and conclusions of law sufficiently for the record. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied Defendant’s appeal and upheld the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Andrew Thomson, No. M16-0011 (February 8, 2018).pdf