The Defendant appeals a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-34-3, “Operation by Person Other than Lessee.” The Defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the charge. At the trial, a detective  testified that officers from his department had pulled a motorist over for reckless driving. The detective testified that the car that was being driven had been rented out to the Defendant.  Accordingly, the defendant was charged with “Operation by Person Other than Lessee.” At the trial the detective attempted to introduce a copy of the rental agreement into evidence, but the Defendant objected, arguing that the document had not been authenticated by the rental company, and the Trial Magistrate sustained the objection. The Detective testified that he had had a conversation with the defendant concerning the charged violation and that, during that conversation, the Defendant had admitted to having “rented the vehicle and also that she permitted [another motorist] to operate the rental vehicle.” The Trial Magistrate sustained the charge. The Defendant timely appealed. 

Rhode Island Gen. Laws. Section 31-34-3 provides that “Whenever the owner of a motor vehicle rents a vehicle without a driver to another it shall be unlawful for the lessee to permit any other person to operate the vehicle without the permission of the owner.” The Defendant conceded that the first element, permitting another person to operate the vehicle, had been proved.  The Defendant argued that the second element, that this was done without the permission of the owner, had not been proved. The Appeals Panel held that the Prosecution had not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence as “there was not any evidence for the Trial Magistrate to find that it was ’highly probable’ [the Defendant] did not have permission to allow another individual to operate the rental vehicle.” Further, the Appeals Panel concluded that it was correct to exclude the rental agreement from being admitted into evidence because the prosecution did not provide an adequate foundation establishing the authenticity of the document. The Appeals Panel granted the Defendant’s appeal and dismissed the charged violation.