Appeals Panel
08/18/2009
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 Radar Calibration
Radar/Laser Calibration
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Following State of Rhode Island v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 36 (R.I. 1974), the Court held that an officer must be trained to use a radar gun and the gun must have been calibrated within a reasonable time. Here, the officer testified that he had been trained to use a radar gun in the Academy and that his radar gun had been calibrated three months prior to issuing the citation. Accordingly, the Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 (August 18, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/18/2009
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 Discovery
Discovery
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that it was within the discretion of the trial magistrate whether or not to dismiss the charge because of the trooper’s failure to comply with a discovery order. Furthermore, the trooper’s non-compliance with the discovery order, requesting mechanical records concerning the trooper’s car, his training records, and the specifications of the speed measurement device, did not have a material or prejudicial effect on the defendant. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 (August 18, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/18/2009
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 Credibility
Credibility
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The defendant claimed that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in crediting the testimony of the citing officer over his testimony because the officer appeared to be reading from a paper when testifying and made a mistake as to the color of the defendant’s vehicle. However, the Court held that only the finder of fact may assess the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 (August 18, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/18/2009
T09-0036 Identifying the Defendant
Identification
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Although there was no in-court identification of the defendant, the Court held that the evidence on record showed that it was highly probable that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle where he responded numerous times to his name at trial. Thus, the state met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 (August 18, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/18/2009
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 Speeding
Speeding
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 36 (R.I. 1974), the Court held that an officer must be trained to use a radar device and the device must have been calibrated within a reasonable time. Here, the officer testified that he had been trained in the use of a radar device at the Academy and that his radar device had been calibrated three months prior to the citation. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation against the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 (August 18, 2009).pdf