Appellate Procedure

Defendant appealed the Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-15-12,“Following too Close.” An officer for the Portsmouth Police Department testified at trial that he was assisting with an undercover operation to determine whether vehicles would stop for pedestrians on a crosswalk. The Officer testified to witnessing a car stop for the undercover officer at the crosswalk and that the Defendant “was following too close to the vehicle in front of it and did not leave enough space that was reasonable and prudent.” Further, the officer testified that the Defendant had to use the breakdown lane to avoid causing an accident. Defense counsel attempted to present a motion before having the Defendant testify, but the Magistrate stated that he “would want to hear from [the Defendant] first.” During his testimony, the Defendant stated that the vehicle in front of him “abruptly stopped” and he made the decision to use the breakdown lane to avoid the car behind him from rear ending him and causing a chain reaction. The Defendant testified that he could have stopped in time but was worried about getting rear ended . Ultimately, the Trial Magistrate found that the Defendant was justified in the use of the breakdown lane, but he found the Defendant guilty of “following too close.” The Defendant appealed, arguing that the Magistrate failed to permit him to present a motion to dismiss after the State rested its case and that the officer  failed to identify the Defendant as the operator of the motor vehicle.

The Appeals Panel focused its decision using the “raise or waive” rule to determine whether the issues being appealed had been properly raised at the trial. While the Panel noted that Defendant did not specifically raise the issue of identification as the operator or specifically state that counsel was presenting a motion to dismiss, the Appeals Panel found that defense counsel “said just enough to raise the issue for consideration on appeal” when counsel stated that the Defendant would testify depending on the Magistrate’s ruling on his motion. The Appeals Panel held that this was sufficient information to alert the Magistrate that counsel intended to present a motion to dismiss before presenting any further evidence. For these reasons the Appeals Panel held that the Trial Magistrate erred in failing to hear the Defendant’s Motion and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its decision.  

 State of Rhode Island v. Aitor Aldazabal T21-0026 (July 21, 2022).pdf