Procedure

Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by limiting his cross-examination of the Officer. The District Court noted, however, that the record showed that the Defendant was able to conduct cross-examination and did not place on the record any additional questions he wanted to pose. The District Court further held that since the issue was not properly preserved for appeal, the Panel correctly declined to consider the issue. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.

James Folan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0021 (February 25, 2015).pdf

Procedure

Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming a municipal court judge’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that he was prejudiced by repeated scheduling miscues, which caused him to have to return to court multiple times before being afforded his trial. The District Court noted that the Panel found that the scheduling errors violated neither the right to due process, because he was afforded a trial, nor the right to a speedy trial, which is only applicable in criminal cases. The District Court, however, held that the Panel should have addressed the Defendant’s procedural complaint by the standards enumerated in Rule 26(b) of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure because the court was adjudicating a traffic offense. Despite the error in applicable standard, the District Court held that the case did not need to be remanded because the Defendant had not proven prejudicial delay within the case. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.

James Folan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 14-0021 (February 25, 2015).pdf