Appeals Panel
07/16/2018
State of Rhode Island v. Philip J. Casey, No. T17-0012; State of Rhode Island v. Ryan P. Gensel, No. T17-0013 (July 16, 2018)
Collateral Estoppel
Defendants, in a consolidated case, appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicles). Defendants were part of a group of nine motorcyclists who were pulled over and cited for “following too closely.” Prior to Defendants’ trial, the court heard a separate trial regarding the same charge issued to the other motorcyclists. Those motorcyclists were found not guilty. On appeal, Defendants argued, among other things, that the State was barred from re-litigating issues under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel “‘prevents the relitigation of issue[s] actually litigated and determined between the same parties’ or those in privity with them.” Lee v. Rhode Island Council 94, 796 A.2d 1080, 1084 (R.I. 2002) (quoting Wilkinson v. The State Crime Laboratory Commission, 788 A.2d 1129, 1141 (R.I. 2002)). The Appeals Panel held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the issues were not identical and because the parties were not the same or in privity with one another. The Appeals Panel reasoned that, although the two trials revolved around the same charge, the issues differed because Defendants’ behavior “may have been different from their peers on the road that day.” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.
*Note: On October 16, 2018, the Appeals Panel amended the decision to remove footnote number 2.
State of Rhode Island v. Philip J. Casey, No. T17-0012; State of Rhode Island v. Ryan P. Gensel, No. T17-0013 (July 16, 2018).pdf
Appeals Panel
07/16/2018
State of Rhode Island v. Philip J. Casey, No. T17-0012; State of Rhode Island v. Ryan P. Gensel, No. T17-0013 (July 16, 2018)
Bolstering
Defendants, in a consolidated case, appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicles). The trial judge found that Defendants were driving their motorcycles with one to three car lengths separating them from the vehicle ahead. Based on a State Trooper’s testimony as an accident reconstruction expert, the trial judge concluded that the distance between the vehicles should have been greater. Defendants argued, among other things, that the expert testimony was impermissible bolstering. The Rhode Island Supreme Court considers opinion testimony to be bolstering if “the opinion testimony has the same substantive import as if it squarely addressed and bolstered another witness’s credibility.” State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467, 476 (R.I. 2010) (quoting State v. Miller, 679 A.2d 867, 872 (R.I. 1996)). The Appeals Panel held that the State Trooper’s testimony was not impermissible bolstering because it did not have “the same substantive import as if it squarely addressed and bolstered another witness’s credibility.” Id. (quoting State v. Miller, 679 A.2d 867, 872 (R.I. 1996)). The State Trooper “merely applied her training in accident reconstruction to the factual scenario Trooper Kelly provided to help the trial magistrate determine the import of the facts at issue.” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.
*Note: On October 16, 2018, the Appeals Panel amended the decision to remove footnote number 2.
State of Rhode Island v. Philip J. Casey, No. T17-0012; State of Rhode Island v. Ryan P. Gensel, No. T17-0013 (July 16, 2018).pdf