Appeals Panel
02/23/2022
State of Rhode Island v. Aboh, Jr. No. T21-0029 Evidence
Evidence
Defendant appealed the decision of the Trial Magistrate sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). Upon appeal, the Defendant argued the Trial Magistrate did not allow all his evidence to be introduced at trial, including copies of radar certifications and copies of the Rhode Island State Police policies for certification of calibration and frequency of calibration of radar devices. The Appeals Panel may only decide if the Trial Magistrate abused his discretion in his decision to not allow evidence at trial. See State v. Houde, 596 A.2d 330, 335 (R.I. 1991).
The Appeals Panel reviewed the record and determined the Trial Magistrate “did not err in excluding the documents from evidence because Appellant did not provide an adequate foundation demonstrating the authenticity of the documents.” See R.I. R. Evid. 901; O’Connor v. Newport Hospital, 111 A.3d 317, 323 (R.I. 2015) (“[A]uthentication and identification are regarded as a special aspect of relevancy; evidence is relevant only if it is in fact what the party seeking its admission claims it to be.”). The evidence the Defendant presented included documents received via a public records request, not through formal discovery, so the Trial Magistrate could not determine the authenticity of the documents, thus making the evidence not relevant. Id. The Appeals Panel distinguished this case from Town of Smithfield v. Connole, C.A. No. T13-0066, Sept. 3, 2014, R.I. Traffic Trib., in which the evidence presented was “obtained through discovery, authenticated by the officer and entered as full exhibits.” Because the Appeals Panel found the evidence presented by the Defendant was not authenticated or obtained through discovery, the Trial Magistrate did not abuse his discretion to exclude the documents. The Appeals Panel found the Trial Magistrate’s decision was not erroneous and denied the appeal.State of Rhode Island v. Aboh, Jr. No. T21-0029 (February 23, 2022).pdf
Appeals Panel
02/23/2022
State of Rhode Island v. Aboh, Jr. No. T21-0029 Speeding
Speeding
Defendant appealed a decision of the Trial Magistrate sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). At trial, the officer testified that the radar device he used to measure the Defendant’s speed “was calibrated externally and internally.” He also testified that he was trained as an officer at the Police Academy, which included a radar certification. The Trial Judge asked the officer to clarify the issue of the “external calibration” of the radar device. The officer displayed a misunderstanding of the term, testifying that tuning forks are used for calibration “internally as in within the cruiser and externally from outside of the cruiser.” The Defendant presented public records as evidence that the officer’s radar device had not been calibrated since 2011, ten years before the incident. In response, the Trial Magistrate explained the difference between calibrating the device internally and externally, further explaining that the officer’s testimony that it had been externally tested with a tuning fork before and after his shift, if accepted, would be legally sufficient. The Trial Magistrate accepted the testimony of the officer as credible, held that it met the requirements of State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (R.I. 1974), and sustained the charge against the Defendant. Defendant appealed.
Under Sprague, for a radar unit reading to be admissible at trial, the testifying officer must meet a two prong test – (1) that the unit was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method and (2) that the officer sets forth his/her training and experience in the use of the radar unit. Id. The Appeals Panel found that the officer’s testimony was sufficient to meet the boths prongs under Sprague because he testified that “prior to and after the shift, [his] radar was calibrated externally and internally” using a tuning fork, and he testified to his training as an officer at the Police Academy. The Appeals Panel found the Trial Magistrate did not err in finding the officer’s testimony satisfactory, denied the appeal, and sustained the violation.
State of Rhode Island v. Aboh, Jr. No. T21-0029 (February 23, 2022).pdf