Defendant appealed the decision of the Trial Judge sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to traffic control devices). At trial, the officer testified he was at his post when he observed that the Defendant, who was traveling toward the officer, in the middle of a one-lane construction bridge controlled by a traffic light. The officer determined that the Defendant must have run a red light to end up in the middle of the bridge when the light on the officer’s side turned green. The officer presented evidence with respect to how long the traffic light stays green, yellow and red. Upon cross-examination by the Defendant, the officer testified that he did not recall how many vehicles were in front of the Defendant, that there were no signs posted telling vehicles the length of time they had to cross the bridge, and that he could not see the light on the Defendant’s side of the bridge because he was parked across the bridge. The Trial Judge found the officer’s testimony credible and sustained the charge against the Defendant.

On appeal, the Defendant argued that the officer’s testimony failed to establish that he proceeded through a red light “to a standard of clear and convincing evidence” as required by Rule 17 of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Traffic Trib. R.P. 17(a). The Appeals Panel stated that because the officer was unable to personally observe the color of the traffic light on the Defendant’s side of the bridge, he made an assumption based upon circumstantial evidence, including the light intervals and the fact that Defendant’s car was in the middle of bridge. Additionally, the officer agreed on the record that the length of time to cross the bridge could vary based on the number of vehicles crossing. For all of these reasons, the Appeals Panel found that the officer’s testimony was not enough to meet the “clear and convincing evidence” standard required to prove the charge, granted the appeal, and dismissed the charge.