Procedure

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that the trial judge’s decision was clearly erroneous because he failed to consider the Defendant’s cell-phone video evidence. The Panel noted that a video “is received into evidence only after a witness with personal knowledge testifies that it is a true and accurate representation.” State v. Brown, 88 A.3d 1101, 1117 (R.I. 2014). The Panel held that the trial judge was not able to consider the admissibility of the video because the Defendant, who was pro se at the trial, never moved to introduce the video to the court and it was not authenticated. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to not consider the video evidence and to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Manelik Vallejo, C.A. No. T14-0048 (July 8, 2015).pdf