Speeding

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds). The Court held that where the officers did not observe the defendant speeding, the witness testimony that the motorcycle was “accelerating” and performing a “wheelie” did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the defendant operated his motorcycle in a way that violated the statute. Accordingly, because the city failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not operate his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed, the Court reveresed the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the violation.

City of Pawtucket v. Anselmo Depina, C.A. No.T10-0018 (November 23, 2010).pdf