In-court identification of the defendant

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  Defendant claimed that because the Trooper identified the defendant by the wrong first name during testimony, the Trooper misidentified defendant as the operator of the vehicle.  Following Town of North Kingstown v. Philip Dey, C.A. No. T13-0008, September 10, 2013, R.I. Traffic Trib. (holding that in-court identification can be inferred from all the facts and circumstances presented to the finder of fact), the tribunal found that the trial magistrate was satisfied that the defendant had been identified as the operator of the vehicle because when defendant testified, defendant himself admitted to being the operator of the vehicle, and thus cured any defect in the Trooper’s testimony.  Thus, the tribunal held that the trial magistrate’s decision was supported by the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and 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. Jeffrey Babb, C.A. No. T13-0069 (April 16, 2014).pdf