Appeals Panel
11/05/2008
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008)
Turn Signal Required
The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that the turn signal violation was not proven to a standard of clear and convincing evidence because there was no evidence presented that “any other traffic [was] affected by the movement” of his vehicle. The Panel noted that to sustain a turn signal violation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant failed to use a turn signal, that other traffic was affected by the movement of the vehicle, and that the movement of the vehicle was not made with reasonable safety. The Panel held that because the prosecution did not introduce evidence that the Defendant’s movement affected other traffic or was made without reasonable safety, the turn signal violation must be dismissed.
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
11/05/2008
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008)
Due Process
The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that he was denied the right to a fair trial because the trial judge acted as both the prosecutor and fact-finder. Here, the Panel held that where the trial judge interrupted the Officer’s testimony to question about facts in evidence, he did so for purposes of clarification. Accordingly, the Panel held that the Defendant’s due process rights were not compromised and upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations.
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
11/05/2008
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008)
Due Process
The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant, who appeared pro se, argued that the trial judge violated his due process rights by not advising him of his right to cross-examine the Officer. The Panel noted that a pro se litigant is expected to become familiar with the rules of procedure and that, had the Defendant reviewed the rules of procedure, he would have realized that he was entitled to cross-examine the Officer. Nonetheless, the Panel held that the Defendant was deprived by not being afforded a meaningful opportunity to cross–examine the Officer as to the seat-belt violation. Accordingly, the Panel remanded the seat-belt violation to allow the Defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the Officer.
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
11/05/2008
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008)
Procedure
The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that because the prosecution failed to appear at trial, the trial abused his discretion by not dismissing the violation pursuant to Rule 17. Rule 17 reads that if the prosecution fails to appear for trial, the matter “may be dismissed.” The Panel held that the Defendant failed to prove that the trial judge’s decision was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations.
City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008).pdf