Procedure

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2(a) (Prima Facie Limits).  At trial, the Defendant appeared pro se.  The judge asked the officer whether his radar unit had been calibrated and whether he held certification in the use of radar equipment, thereby establishing the evidence required under State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), to support the charge.  Defendant argued that the judge improperly guided the police officer’s testimony at trial. The Appeals Panel explained that a trial judge’s prerogative to question witnesses is limited to clarifying a matter that may be cause for confusion.  Here, the Panel concluded these questions were not asked to clarify confusing testimony or subject matter, but were pin-point questions designed to ensure that the officer gave testimony establishing the necessary elements to sustain the charge.  Accordingly, the Appeals Panel held that the judge’s decision was based on unlawful procedure and abuse of discretion, and dismissed the charged violation.

Town of North Smithfield v, Santo Mascena, C.A. No. M14-0002 (August 7, 2014) Trial Procedure.pdf