RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

City of East Providence v. James Roberson, C.A. No. M12-0009 (December 13, 2012)

City of East Providence v. James Roberson, C.A. No. M12-0009 (December 13, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/13/2012
City of East Providence v. James Roberson, C.A. No. M12-0009 (December 13, 2012) Penalties

Penalties

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 §§ 31-15-11 (laned roadways) and 31-15-5 (turn signal required).  The Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in finding him guilty of the violations.  The Panel explained it will not substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge on issues of credibility.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.  The Panel, sua sponte, then reconsidered the court costs imposed.  The Panel pointed out that the trial judge erred in assessing court costs of $35.00 for each violation.  The Panel explained that, pursuant to the statute, a $35.00 fee shall be assessed for “each person” and not for each violation.  See R.I.G.L. 1956 § 8-18-4(g).  The Panel held that the trial judge erred in assessing a fee for each violation and that the Defendant was entitled to a refund for any costs beyond the $35.00 statutory hearing fee set out in § 8-18-4(g).  Accordingly, the Panel remanded for the re-allocation of court costs.

City of East Providence v. James Roberson, C.A. No. M12-0009 (December 13, 2012).pdf

Appeals Panel
12/13/2012
City of East Providence v. James Roberson, C.A. No. M12-0009 (December 13, 2012) Credibility

Credibility

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 §§ 31-15-11 (laned roadways) and 31-15-5 (turn signal required).  At trial, the Officer testified that he observed Defendant traveling at a high rate of speed, over laned lines, passing vehicles on the left and right, without signaling.  The Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in finding him guilty of the violations.  The Panel explained it will not substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge on issues of credibility.  The Panel noted that the trial judge found the Officer’s testimony credible, and specifically noted the Defendant admitted to having a broken signal bulb.  On the basis of this evidence, the Panel held that the trial judge did not err in finding the Defendant guilty.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations. 

City of East Providence v. James Roberson, C.A. No. M12-0009 (December 13, 2012).pdf