District Court
08/10/2006
Joseph Perry v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-57 Credibility
Credibility
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-2 (manner of turning at intersection). The defendant argued that the trial magistrate abused his discretion in finding the officer’s testimony credible. However, the District Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Here, the trial magistrate took into account the defendant’s speed, the officer’s qualifications in use of the radar instrument and the proper calibration of the radar instrument. Accordingly, the District Court held that the trial magistrate did not abuse his discretion and affirmed the decision sustaining the violation.
Joseph Perry v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-57 (August 10, 2006).pdf
District Court
08/10/2006
Joseph Perry v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-57 Radar Calibration
Radar/Laser Calibration
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the trial magistrate’s decision finding violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits) and §31-16-2 (manner of turning at intersection). Pursuant to State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, (R.I. 1974), the District Court held that the officer’s testimony that the radar unit was calibrated properly before his shift, as well as testimony that the officer was properly trained in the use of a radar instrument was sufficient to establish the defendant’s speed. Here, the officer provided both of those facts in his testimony. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate.
Joseph Perry v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-57 (August 10, 2006).pdf
District Court
08/10/2006
Joseph Perry v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-57-Admisibility of Evidence
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits) and R.I.G.L. § 31-16-2 (manner of turning at intersection). Defendant attempted to enter documents used by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation to establish that the speed he was traveling was a safe and reasonable speed for the road he was traveling on. The District Court held that this evidence was irrelevant because they were the same documents that the Rhode Island Department of Transportation used to determine that 40mph was the maximum speed for safe and reasonable driving. Noting that the admissibility of evidence is up to the sound discretion of the trial magistrate, the District Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate.
Joseph Perry v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-57 (August 10, 2006).pdf