Evidence

Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). A North Kingstown police officer conducted a traffic stop which resulted in a citation under § 31-27-2.1. Following multiple appeals, Defendant’s case was remanded to the trial magistrate for further factual findings on the issue of the location of the violation. Defendant attempted to introduce two maps to show that the stop took place outside of North Kingstown, but the trial magistrate excluded one of the maps (Map B). Moreover, the trial magistrate accorded little weight to the admitted map (Map A). On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred since Map A established that the violation occurred outside of North Kingstown and, therefore, the violation should have been dismissed.

Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 15 provides that the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence govern all proceedings before the Traffic Tribunal. Although relevant evidence is admissible, “the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial [magistrate].” See State v. Grayhurst, 652 A.2d 491, 504 (R.I. 2004). Moreover, the Appeals Panel “will not conclude that a trial [magistrate] abused his or her discretion as long as some grounds to support the decision appear in the record.” Id. at 505.

Here, the trial magistrate did not err in excluding Map B because Defendant did not supply any evidence demonstrating the authenticity of the map. Also, the trial magistrate did not err in according Map A little weight because Defendant failed to demonstrate that the map was a fair and accurate representation of the area. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. James Harrington, T15-0040 (April 30, 2019).pdf