Credibility

Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-22-31 (mobile telephone usage by motor vehicle operators). At trial, the citing officer testified that “there [was] no doubt in [his] mind that there was a cell phone in [Defendant’s] hand.” Conversely, Defendant testified that she was not using her phone while driving, and she supported her testimony with a call log from her wireless cell phone provider. Although the trial judge admitted the call log into evidence, he stated that call logs typically have “very, very, very limited relevancy” because the judge could not be sure that the call log matched the phone that Defendant had on the day of the citation. Additionally, the trial judge found the police officer’s testimony credible.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred by: (1) crediting the officer’s testimony over her own; and (2) by failing to afford the proper weight to the call logs. Both issues involved credibility determinations, and the Appeals Panel “lacks the authority to assess witness credibility or to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing judge.” Link v. State, 633 A.2d 1345, 1348. (R.I. 1993) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Janes, 586 A.2d 536, 537 (R.I. 1991)). As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Merimee Christopherson, No. T18-0016 (December 11, 2018).pdf