Appeals Panel
02/25/2014
Town of Middletown v. Kyle DeCosta, C.A. No. M13-0020 Summons
Summons
Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2(a), “Prima facie limits.” Defendant claimed the trial judge should have approved defendant’s motion to dismiss because the summons misidentified the make of defendant’s vehicle. The Panel explained that an error in a summons warrants dismissal only when the error misleads or prejudices the defendant. The Panel noted that the trial judge was satisfied that the summons apprised the defendant of the charge and, therefore, that it did not mislead or prejudice defendant. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Middletown v. Kyle DeCosta, C.A. No. M13-0020 (February 25, 2014).pdf
Appeals Panel
02/25/2014
Town of Middletown v. Kyle DeCosta, C.A. No. M13-0020 Credibility
Credibility
Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2(a), “Prima facie limits.” At trial, the issuing officer testified that he observed the registration number on Defendant’s vehicle when taking radar of the defendant’s vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit. The officer then testified that he lost sight of Defendant’s vehicle before making the stop. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the officer misidentified his vehicle with another vehicle that was exceeding the speed limit and that the trial judge’s decision to favor the officer’s testimony over defendant’s was an abuse of discretion. The Appeals Panel explained that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge on issues of credibility. The Panel explained that the trial judge was satisfied with the officer’s testimony that he observed the defendant’s registration number and that he measured the defendant’s vehicle exceeding the speed limit. Accordingly, the Panel held the sustained charge was
Town of Middletown v. Kyle DeCosta, C.A. No. M13-0020 (February 25, 2014).pdf