Appeals Panel
01/28/2014
City of East Providence v. James Folan, C.A. No. M13-0016 Sixth Amendment
6th Amendment
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated because he had additional questions for the officer that he was not allowed to ask on cross-examination. However, the Appeals Panel held that these questions were not raised or asked at trial. Following the “raise-or-waive” rule, the Court held that it was precluded from considering on appeal issues not properly presented before the trial court. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.City of East Providence v. James Folan, C.A. No. M13-0016 (January 28, 2014).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/29/2014
City of East Providence v. James Folan, C.A. No. M13-0016 Due Process
Due Process
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated because he was not afforded the opportunity to a speedy trial. The Appeals Panel held that the right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal prosecutions and, because the charge of violating § 31-22-22 is civil in nature, the constitutional right to a speedy trial had no application. “Due Process” at the Traffic Tribunal means “an opportunity to be heard within a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Here, the defendant’s rights were not violated because he had been fully heard on the merits of the case and had cross-examined the officer. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.City of East Providence v. James Folan, C.A. No. M13-0016 (January 28, 2014).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/28/2014
City of East Providence v. James Folan, C.A. No. M13-0016 Credibility
Credibility
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). Defendant claimed that he was wearing his seat belt and that the trial judge erred because he credited the testimony of the officer over his own. However, the Appeals Panel held that only the finder of fact may asses the credibility of witnesses. Here, the trial judge chose to believe the officer’s testimony that he had an unobstructed view, the defendant was not wearing a seat belt and that the defendant was the person operating the vehicle. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. City of East Providence v. James Folan, C.A. No. M13-0016 (January 28, 2014).pdf