Appeals Panel
03/11/2018
State of Rhode Island v. Dana Stephen, No. M17-0015 (April 11, 2018)
Evidence
Defendant appealed a decision of the North Smithfield Municipal Court sustaining a violation of R.I. Gen Laws 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway violation). Defendant argued that the Trial Judge erred by considering his prior moving violations because evidence of the violations was not properly admitted at trial. The Appeals Panel, however, noted that pursuant to Rule 15 of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence apply to all adjudications of civil violations before the traffic tribunal and municipal courts. Under Rule 20 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, “judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.” Therefore, the Appeals Panel found that the Trial Judge had properly taken note under Rule 20 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence of Defendant’s past moving violations. The Appeals Panel did not address any argument of whether the prior moving violations may have been admitted improperly as evidence of propensity or whether the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied Defendant’s appeal and sustained the charged violation and the enhanced penalties.
State of Rhode Island v. Dana Stephen, No. M17-0015 (April 11, 2018).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/11/2018
State of Rhode Island v. Dana Stephen, No. M17-0015 (April 11, 2018)
Jurisdiction
Defendant appealed a decision of the North Smithfield Municipal Court sustaining a violation of R.I. Gen Laws 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway violation). Defendant argued that the North Smithfield Municipal Court acted in excess of its authority by imposing a severe penalty under the Colin Foote Act because a municipal court had no jurisdiction under that statute. The Appeals Panel noted that “a review of § 45-2-59 reveals that [a] municipal court [has] concurrent jurisdiction with the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal to hear and adjudicate those violations conferred upon the municipal court and enumerated in § 8-18-3.” The Appeals Panel held that, although the Colin Foote Act is not “enumerated in § 8-18-3,” it is a “sentencing-enhancement mechanism.” The Appeals Panel found an analogy to the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s ruling that Rhode Island’s habitual offender law (§ 12-19-21(a)) was a “sentencing-enhancement mechanism. State v. Sitko, A.2d 260, 261 (R.I. 1983)(citing State v. DeMasi, A.2d 1369, 1372 (R.I. 1980)). Under this reasoning, municipal courts maintain concurrent jurisdiction and can apply the provisions of the Colin Foote Act. Therefore, the Appeals Panel found that the Trial Judge acted within the municipal court’s jurisdiction when imposing the penalties listed in § 31-27-24. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied Defendant’s appeal and sustained the charged violation.
State of Rhode Island v. Dana Stephen, No. M17-0015 (April 11, 2018).pdf