Hearsay

Defendant appealed from a decision by the trial judge sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices).  Specifically, the Defendant argued that the trial judge’s decision to allow the officer to testify to out-of-court statements made by a witness constituted inadmissible hearsay requiring reversal of the charge.  The Panel explained that the statements were in fact inadmissible hearsay, and that the City offered no exception to the hearsay rule which might apply.  However, the Panel explained that although the judge allowed the officer to testify to the hearsay evidence, she did not rely on the evidence in reaching her decision.   The Panel noted that the judge stated in her conclusion that she credited other in-court testimony over Defendant’s.  Additionally, the Panel noted, in her decision she stated: “I’m not going to let it [the hearsay testimony] in….”  The Panel held that the trial judge relied on other competent evidence when reaching her decision, despite having heard the hearsay evidence.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.

City of Pawtucket v. Mark Daluk, C.A. No. M12-0022 (April 23, 2013).pdf