Appeals Panel
08/27/2013
State of Rhode Island v. Michael Hersey C.A. No. T12-0081 Trial Procedure
Procedure
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant claimed that the evidence of calibration was not properly submitted at trial because the calibration sheet was not marked for identification and was not introduced as a full exhibit. Further, the calibration sheet was handed to the judge after the defendant’s objection. It is mandatory that the calibration sheet be entered into evidence in order to prove a violation of speeding. See State v. Mancino, 115 R.I. at 54, 340 A.2d 128 (R.I. 1975). Here, the Appeals Panel concluded that the calibration sheet was not properly admitted into evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous as it was made upon unlawful procedure. Consequently, the Appeals Panel dismissed the violation.State of Rhode Island v. Michael Hersey C.A. No. T12-0081.pdf
Appeals Panel
08/27/2013
State of Rhode Island v. Michael Hersey C.A. No. T12-0081 Radar Calibration
Radar/Laser Calibration
Defendant appealed a decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant claimed the decision of the trial magistrate was clearly erroneous in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record because evidence of calibration was not properly submitted at trial. The Appeals Panel found that the requirements set forth in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), were not satisfied because the officer did not testify as to the calibration of the radar, speedometer, or odometer units or to his training and experience in the operation of the units. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel dismissed the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Michael Hersey C.A. No. T12-0081.pdf