The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 31-15-11, “Laned roadways.” A patrolman testified that he was on a fixed traffic post when he heard a vehicle sounding its horn. He then saw the vehicle “proceed around the other vehicle by crossing over the double-yellow line and enter the left-hand lane of travel, before re-entering the right-hand lane of travel.” The patrolman conducted a stop and identified the Defendant as the driver. He testified that during the stop the Defendant said he had passed the vehicle because “the vehicle was driving too slow in front of him.” The Defendant testified at trial, denying that he had traveled into oncoming travel lane and maintaining that he had properly traveled around the vehicle after it pulled over to the side. Ultimately the Trial Magistrate found the Defendant guilty. The Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show “that he passed the other vehicle because his doing so would have likely resulted in an accident due to the high traffic.” Additionally, the Defendant argued that sustaining this violation would be a violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy because he was also charged with overtaking on the left based upon the same conduct.
The Appeals Panel noted that, in order for a violation to be shown, the following elements must be proved: “(1) the roadway is divided into two or more lanes; (2) the vehicle did not operate as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane; and (3) the vehicle moved from the lane at a time that the move could not be made with safety.” The Panel held that the elements were satisfied when the officer testified that the road was “divided into two lanes,” that the Defendant was observed to“cross over the double-yellow line,” and that it was done at a time that was unsafe to so. As to the double jeopardy claim, the Appeals Panel noted that the relevant question was “whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” The Appeals Panel held that the elements of the two provisions were not overlapping. Due to these reasons the Appeals Panel sustained the charged violation.