Appeals Panel
01/28/2009
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009) Interval Between Vehicles
Interval between Vehicles
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicles). Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was an error of law because there was not enough testimony to prove the violation. The Panel noted that the Officer testified that the Defendant followed another vehicle at a high rate of speed, at a distance of about six or seven feet, in an active construction site. The Panel held that this testimony satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant violated the statute. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/28/2009
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009) Care in Starting from Stop
Care in Starting from Stop
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from a stop). Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was an error of law because there was not enough testimony to prove the violation. The Panel noted that the Officer testified that he heard the distinctive sound of “screeching” and that this testimony was enough to prove by a standard of clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant started a vehicle from a stop without reasonable safety. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/28/2009
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009) Clearance for Overtaking
Clearance for Overtaking
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-6 (clearance for overtaking). Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was an error of law because there was insufficient testimony to support the charge. The Panel noted that the Officer testified that the vehicle was driven to the left side of the center of the roadway without enough visibility and the roadway was not free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance to permit the overtaking without interfering with the safe operation of vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. The Panel held that this testimony satisfied the charge to a standard of clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/28/2009
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009) Identification
In-court identification of the defendant
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-6 (clearance for overtaking), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from a stop), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicles). Defendant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charged violations to a standard of clear and convincing evidence as there was no in-court identification of the Defendant by the Officer. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, before trial the Defendant had filed a written waiver of his right to be present at the trial. During the trial, the trial magistrate stated that, by filing such a waiver, the Defendant had acknowledged that he was the operator of the motor vehicle. When defense counsel objected, the trial magistrate ruled that the waiver was invalid and threatened to find the Defendant in default. The Defendant then appeared and acknowledged his name and date of birth on the record, which corresponded to the information listed on the citation. The Panel held that this acknowledgement, in conjunction with the language in the Defendant’s “waiver of appearance” form that he was the “defendant in the above-entitled action,” made it highly probable that the Defendant and the operator of the vehicle were one and the same. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.
City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009).pdf