Defendant appealed the decision of the Trial Magistrate sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). Upon appeal, the Defendant argued the Trial Magistrate did not allow all his evidence to be introduced at trial, including copies of radar certifications and copies of the Rhode Island State Police policies for certification of calibration and frequency of calibration of radar devices. The Appeals Panel may only decide if the Trial Magistrate abused his discretion in his decision to not allow evidence at trial. See State v. Houde, 596 A.2d 330, 335 (R.I. 1991).

The Appeals Panel reviewed the record and determined the Trial Magistrate “did not err in excluding the documents from evidence because Appellant did not provide an adequate foundation demonstrating the authenticity of the documents.” See R.I. R. Evid. 901; O’Connor v. Newport Hospital, 111 A.3d 317, 323 (R.I. 2015) (“[A]uthentication and identification are regarded as a special aspect of relevancy; evidence is relevant only if it is in fact what the party seeking its admission claims it to be.”). The evidence the Defendant presented included documents received via a public records request, not through formal discovery, so the Trial Magistrate could not determine the authenticity of the documents, thus making the evidence not relevant. Id. The Appeals Panel distinguished this case from Town of Smithfield v. Connole, C.A. No. T13-0066, Sept. 3, 2014, R.I. Traffic Trib., in which the evidence presented was “obtained through discovery, authenticated by the officer and entered as full exhibits.” Because the Appeals Panel found the evidence presented by the Defendant was not authenticated or obtained through discovery, the Trial Magistrate did not abuse his discretion to exclude the documents. The Appeals Panel found the Trial Magistrate’s decision was not erroneous and denied the appeal.