Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-26-5 (duty in accident resulting in damage to highway fixtures). Police officers responded to a report that a truck struck a telephone pole. Subsequently, officers located a vehicle that matched a reported description of the truck involved in the accident. At trial, the trial judge inferred that Defendant’s vehicle struck the telephone pole based on a police officer’s testimony that (1) Defendant’s vehicle had damage consistent with striking a pole and (2) Defendant admitted to recently being in the area of the accident.  The Appeals Panel noted that Defendant’s vehicle “matched the description of the vehicle provided by dispatch,” but commented that the testimony about the dispatch description was offered only to show why the officer apprehended Defendant, not for the truth of its contents.

On appeal, Defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated since he was not able to cross-examine the eye-witness who reported the accident. The opportunity to cross-examine the state’s witnesses is essential to the concept of due process, see State v. Doctor, 690 A.2d 321, 327 (R.I. 1997), but the Appeals Panel concluded that the right to cross-examine witnesses is “limited only to those witnesses presented at trial.” Here, the state did not present the eye-witness who reported the accident and, therefore, the Appeals Panel held that Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.