Constitutional Issues

Defendant appealed the decision of the Trial Magistrate sustaining a charged violation of R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). At trial, the Trial Magistrate asked Defendant to clarify whether Defendant was contending that he was not speeding. On appeal, Defendant argued that his right against self-incrimination was violated because the Trial Magistrate forced him to testify. The Appeals Panel held that the questions the Trial Magistrate asked, although they elicited a confession to the offense, did not compel incriminating testimony from Defendant because a speeding charge is civil in nature.  The Appeals Panel did not address the fact that the Defendant was asked these questions during his cross-examination of the officer, not after making a conscious choice to testify in his own defense. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel found that the Trial Magistrate’s decision did not violate any constitutional or statutory provisions. The Appeals Panel subsequently denied Defendant’s Appeal and sustained the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Emil Carsetti, No. T16-0032 (February 15, 2018).pdf