Leaving the Scene

Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-26-5 (duty in accident resulting in damage to highway fixtures). On a snowy night, a police officer responded to a report of a vehicle striking a wall. There, the officer noticed a stop sign knocked down, and he observed tire tracks in the snow which led to Defendant’s driveway. The officer also noticed recent damage to the front of Defendant’s vehicle that was consistent with striking a stop sign. Defendant testified that she did not strike anything and that there was no damage to her car. The trial magistrate found the testimony of the officer to be credible and adopted that testimony as her findings of fact.

On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Defendant’s vehicle struck the stop sign. But the Appeals Panel cannot “substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge” regarding questions of fact. See Link v. State, 633 A.2d 1345, 1348 (R.I. 1993) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Janes, 586 A.2d 536, 537 (R.I. 1991)). The Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous because the record contained legally competent evidence from which the trial magistrate could conclude that Defendant’s vehicle struck the stop sign. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Carole Kus, No. T19-0007 (June 6, 2019).pdf