Procedure

Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-5 (overtaking on the right). The Defendant argued that the Officer’s testimony exceeded the bounds of lay-opinion testimony and was improper because the Officer was permitted to state his conclusions regarding the circumstances of the accident. The District Court concluded that the Officer’s opinion was rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, pursuant to Rule 701 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. The Court also concluded, pursuant to the factors set out in State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101 (R.I. 1999), that the facts upon which the Officer’s opinion was based were such that they could not be reproduced precisely and that people could readily understand them. As such, the Court held that the opinion testimony was properly admitted. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.

Aysia Rivers v. City of Providence, A.A. No. 14-0019 (February 25, 2015).pdf

Procedure

Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-5 (overtaking on the right). The Defendant argued that the Officer was improperly allowed to give expert-opinion testimony in the field of accident reconstruction though he was not certified as an expert in the field until five months after the accident. The District Court held that since the Officer expressly stated that his opinion was only his professional opinion, it was clear that the trial magistrate did not consider the Officer’s testimony as expert testimony. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.

Aysia Rivers v. City of Providence, A.A. No. 14-0019 (February 25, 2015).pdf