Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Lincoln v. Richard McKee, C.A. No. T08-0128 (December 10, 2008)
Summons
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-24-1 (times when lights required). The Defendant argued that his due process rights were compromised because the traffic citation was not signed on the back, which deprived him of notice of his court date and an opportunity to be heard. The Panel noted, however, that Rhode Island courts have consistently recognized that a mere defect in the traffic citation does not preclude a court from sustaining the charged violation, except where the error misled the defendant to his or her prejudice. Here, the Panel was satisfied that the Defendant was fully and fairly appraised of the offense and was not prejudiced because, even in the absence of the Officer’s signature, the information contained in the citation was sufficient to inform the Defendant of the necessary arraignment details. Accordingly, the Panel held that the charged violation should be sustained.
Town of Lincoln v. Richard McKee, C.A. No. T08-0128 (December 10, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Lincoln v. Richard McKee, C.A. No. T08-0128 (December 10, 2008)
In-court identification of the defendant
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-24-1 (times when lights required). The Defendant argued that the charge could not be sustained because there was no in-court identification of the Defendant as the operator of the vehicle. The Panel noted that the Defendant did not cite any sources to show that in-court identification is required, and held that the Defendant’s argument would fail even if he had cited a source because Defendant’s counsel indicated on the record that he was appearing “on behalf of” the Defendant and because the Officer testified that he “identified the driver [of the suspect vehicle]” as the Defendant. Accordingly, the Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not affected by error of law and sustained the charged violation.
Town of Lincoln v. Richard McKee, C.A. No. T08-0128 (December 10, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Lincoln v. Richard McKee, C.A. No. T08-0128 (December 10, 2008)
Judicial Notice
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-24-1 (times when lights required). The Defendant argued that the charged violation had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence because the trial magistrate improperly took judicial notice of the fact that the time of the charged violation, approximately 1:30 a.m., was between sunrise and sunset. The Panel noted that, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal, a trial magistrate may take judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute if it is generally known without the jurisdiction of the court or capable of accurate and ready determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The Panel determined that the trial magistrate’s decision to take judicial notice of the fact was based on a belief that was not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known and capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned. Accordingly, the Panel found that the trial magistrate’s decision to take judicial notice of the fact that 1:30 a.m. is between sunrise and sunset was not an abuse of his discretion and, therefore, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Lincoln v. Richard McKee, C.A. No. T08-0128 (December 10, 2008).pdf