Obedience to Devices

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices). The Court held that, according to Parker v. Parker, 238 A.2d 57, 60-61 (R.I. 1968), clear and convincing evidence “is a degree of proof different from a satisfaction by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ which is the recognized burden in civil actions and from proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ which is the required burden in criminal suits.” “‘[C]lear and convincing evidence’ means that the jury must believe that the truth of the facts asserted by the proponent is highly probable.” Id. The Court held that there was no evidence on record that the defendant drove by a sign or signs designed to limit access to the structurally-deficient span applicable to him. Further, the Court held that the state failed to prove the violation by clear and convincing evidence as required by Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the violation against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. Roy Wood, C.A. No. T09-0023 (April 8, 2009).pdf