Appeals Panel
04/24/2018
State of Rhode Island v. Douglas Lecuivre, No. T17-0014 (April 24, 2018)
Hearsay
Defendant appealed a decision by a trial magistrate upholding a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty upon collision with unattended vehicle). Defendant argued that the trial magistrate improperly admitted hearsay testimony into evidence and then relied on that testimony in his decision. Specifically, defendant contends that the citing officer’s testimony regarding defendant’s statements on the day of the accident were inadmissible as hearsay. The Appeals Panel, however, noted that defendant’s statements to the citing officer were statements by a “party opponent,” meaning they fall under an exception to the hearsay rule. As a result, the Appeals Panel held that defendant’s statements were admissible and not inadmissible hearsay. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied defendant’s appeal and upheld the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. Douglas Lecuivre, No. T17-0014 (April 24, 2018).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/24/2018
State of Rhode Island v. Douglas Lecuivre, No. T17-0014 (April 24, 2018)
Leaving the Scene
Defendant appealed a decision by a trial magistrate upholding a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty upon collision with unattended vehicle). Defendant argued that he lacked knowledge of the collision, and therefore an essential element of the alleged citation could not be proven. The Appeals Panel noted, however, that the record contained an admission by defendant that he exited his vehicle to check for damage prior to leaving the vicinity of the unattended vehicle, and further testimony by the citing officer finding clear damage to the driver’s side of defendant’s vehicle along with “paint transfer” from the unattended vehicle. The Appeals Panel held that this evidence was sufficient for the trial magistrate to conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant had knowledge of the damage to the unattended vehicle and, therefore, had a duty to report the collision. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied defendant’s appeal and affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. Douglas Lecuivre, No. T17-0014 (April 24, 2018).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/24/2018
State of Rhode Island v. Douglas Lecuivre, No. T17-0014 (April 24, 2018)
Identification
Defendant appealed a decision by a trial magistrate upholding a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty upon collision with unattended vehicle). Defendant argued that the citing officer did not properly identify the motorist, citing the Appeals Panel’s past decision in City of Warwick v. Michael Murphy, T06-0002 (R.I. Traff. Trib. 2006) (requiring defendant identification for an officer to testify about a breathalyzer test he conducted). The Appeals Panel, however, noted that the issue differed in this case, because the issue was only whether the citing officer had provided sufficient evidence to prove that defendant was the operator of the vehicle that collided with the unattended vehicle. After analyzing the record, which included evidence that the citing officer found fresh paint and damage from a collision on defendant’s car, the Appeals Panel found that the trial magistrate’s decision to uphold the citation was not affected by error of law. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied defendant’s appeal and upheld the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. Douglas Lecuivre, No. T17-0014 (April 24, 2018).pdf