10/02/2012
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The officer who pulled the defendant over for speeding testified for the state, which concluded the state’s case in chief. After a short cross-examination, the Appellant’s counsel stated that he had “no other questions, Judge.” Then, the trial magistrate stated that the prosecution had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and sustained the violation against the defendant. The trial magistrate had understood “no other questions Judge” to refer to the case in chief, but the Appellant’s counsel was only stating that he had no further questions for the officer. The Appellant was not afforded an opportunity to present his case in chief. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel determined that remanding the case was appropriate because the trial magistrate’s error was the result of his misunderstanding the defendant’s counsel.