Appeals Panel
06/06/2019
State of Rhode Island v. Xing Guang Cui, No. T19-0004 (June 6, 2019)
Due Process
Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to traffic control devices). At trial, a state trooper presented uncontroverted testimony establishing that he had observed Defendant take a left turn through a red arrow. When the trial magistrate asked Defendant if he had any testimony to present, Defendant responded: “[M]y intention today is not to testify.” On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision violated Defendant’s due process rights because the trial magistrate did not afford Defendant an opportunity to testify at trial.
Procedural due process requires that a defendant be provided an opportunity to present evidence. See State v. Pompey, 934 A.2d 201, 214 (R.I. 2007). Here, the record clearly shows that the trial magistrate offered Defendant an opportunity to present evidence. The trial magistrate explicitly asked Defendant if he had any testimony to present. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision did not violate Defendant’s due process rights. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. Xing Guang Cui, No. T19-0004 (June 6, 2019).pdf
Appeals Panel
06/06/2019
State of Rhode Island v. Xing Guang Cui, No. T19-0004 (June 6, 2019)
Evidence
Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to traffic control devices). At trial, a state trooper presented uncontroverted testimony establishing that he had observed Defendant take a left turn through a red arrow. The trial magistrate asked Defendant if he had any testimony to present, but Defendant decided not to present any testimony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the state failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that Defendant drove through a red light.
Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 17(a) requires the state to prove a charged violation by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence is clear and convincing when the factfinder is able to “form a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts.” See In re Veronica T., 700 A.2d 1366, 1368 (R.I. 1997). Importantly, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard. See In re Emilee K., 153 A.3D 487, 497 (R.I. 2017).
Here, the state trooper presented uncontroverted testimony that the trial magistrate found to be credible. As credibility determinations are reserved for the trial magistrate, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was supported by legally competent evidence. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. Xing Guang Cui, No. T19-0004 (June 6, 2019).pdf