Credibility

Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). A Pawtucket police officer observed Defendant traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. At trial, Defendant suggested that the police officer’s radar unit may have gotten a reading from another driver’s car. In response to Defendant’s suggestion, the police officer testified as to how the radar unit operates, and the officer assured the court that the radar unit reading came from Defendant’s vehicle.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge’s decision was clearly erroneous because there was no evidence in the record demonstrating that the radar unit’s reading came from Defendant’s vehicle. But the trial judge’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence because the officer’s credible testimony established that the radar unit’s reading came from Defendant’s vehicle. As the Appeals Panel will not disturb a trial judge’s credibility determination, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous. See 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)). Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Nildo-Elesio Andrade, No. M19-0005 (August 13, 2019).pdf