Credibility

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs).  The Appeals Panel held that it lacked the authority to assess witness credibility or to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge concerning the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.  The panel went on to reason that it would be impermissible to second guess the trial judge’s impressions as he observed the officer, listened to his testimony, and determined what to accept and what to disregards, what to believe and disbelieve.  Thus, the Appeals Panel was satisfied that the trial judge had not abused his discretion, and the decision to sustain the violation was supported by legally competent evidence.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation. 

City of Pawtucket v. Matthew Saba, C.A. No. M11-0026 (March 4, 2012).pdf