Appeals Panel
01/21/2014
State of Rhode Island v. Abraham Cure, Jr., C.A. No. T13-0049 Credibility
Credibility
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant claimed that the trial judge abused his discretion because he credited the testimony of the officer over his own testimony. However, the Appeals Panel held that only the finder of fact may asses the credibility of witnesses. Accordingly, Court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion and sustained the violation against the defendant. State of Rhode Island v. Abraham Cure, Jr., C.A. No. T13-0049 (January 21, 2014).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/21/2014
State of Rhode Island v. Abraham Cure, Jr., C.A. No. T13-0049 Radar Calibration
Radar/Laser Calibration
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant argued that the state failed to prove the violation by clear and convincing evidence because the officer failed to enter into evidence the certificate of calibration. However, the Court held that the requirements necessary for radar evidence to support the charge of speeding were satisfied because the officer testified to his training and experience in the use of the radar device and that the device had been calibrated within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. State of Rhode Island v. Abraham Cure, Jr., C.A. No. T13-0049 (January 21, 2014).pdf
Appeals Panel
01/21/2014
State of Rhode Island v. Abraham Cure, Jr., C.A. No. T13-0049 Trial Procedure
Procedure
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant argued that he was prejudiced because the trial judge questioned the officer. The Appeals Panel held that the defendant failed to object to the question asked or the answer given. However, even if the issue had been properly preserved for review, the Court concluded that trial judge’s question to the officer — “How far away was your fixed position when you targeted the vehicle?” — was not improper because it was for clarification purposes and did not rise to the level of being an advocate for the prosecution. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. State of Rhode Island v. Abraham Cure, Jr., C.A. No. T13-0049 (January 21, 2014).pdf