Newly Discovered Evidence

Defendant was charged with violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-13 (crossing center section of divided highway) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-13 (leaving lane of travel). At trial, the Defendant entered into a plea agreement. He plead guilty to the first two violations, and the third violation was dropped. The Defendant then filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea, and his motion was dismissed through email. The following day, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate the decision and a hearing date was set.

The Defendant appeared for the hearing on the motion to vacate and argued that he had newly discovered evidence to show that he was not where the officer said he was at the time of the original violations – rather, he was at his workplace in Connecticut. The Defendant declared he had video from a “dash cam” in his car and evidence from his employer. The Trial Judge explained that without newly discovered evidence that the Defendant “could not have discovered prior to trial,” he could not grant the motion to vacate. The Defendant argued that he was not aware of the day and time of the violations and could not have known this before the trial, but the Trial Judge reminded him that he appeared at an arraignment prior to the trial date. The Defendant then argued that the court “misled him and told him that he could not present the evidence at trial” and that the officer “bullied” him into pleading. The Trial Judge did not believe the Defendant’s arguments and denied the motion to vacate. The Defendant appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Defendant again argued that newly discovered evidence proved his innocence. The Appeals Panel noted that its role is to decide “the correctness of the order granting or denying the motion, not the correctness of the original judgment.” Greenfield Hill Investments, LLC v. Miller, 934 A.2d 223, 224 (R.I. 2007) (citing McBurney v. Roszkowski, 875 A.2d 428, 435 (R.I. 2005)). The Appeals Panel agreed with the Trial Judge’s reasoning that the Appellant “should have known…about his own whereabouts, or at a minimum, could have discovered the circumstances ‘by the exercise of ordinary due diligence.’” See Malinou v. Seattle Savings Bank, 970 A.2d 6, 10 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Forcier v. Forcier, 558 A.2d 212, 213 (R.I. 1989)). The Appeals Panel also found that Appellant’s own argument that the court misled him about his ability to present this evidence at trial meant that he was aware of this evidence at the time and it was not “newly discovered” evidence. The Appeals Panel found the Trial Judge’s decision was not erroneous and, accordingly, denied the Appellant’s appeal.State of Rhode Island v. Monteiro No. T21-0027 (February 23, 2022).pdf

Newly Discovered Evidence

Defendant appealed the decision of the hearing judge denying a motion for relief from judgment for a violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-20-12 (stopping for school bus required). Sections 31-20-12 and 31-20-13, read together, require that a motorist stop for a school bus transporting children while flashing lights are engaged unless the motorist and bus are traveling in opposite lanes and separated by a median. In support of the motion for relief from judgment the defendant argued that he had newly discovered evidence that the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) planned to place a median strip at the site of the violation. He admitted, however, that the median was not in place at the time he was cited. The Panel explained that Rule 20(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal permits relief based on newly discovered evidence only if the evidence is material such that it would probably change the outcome of the proceedings and if the evidence cited was not discoverable at the time of the original hearing by the exercise of ordinary diligence. The Panel held that the evidence the defendant offered was immaterial because at the time he was cited the median strip was not in place. Therefore, it would make no difference whether the DOT had planned to construct a median in the future because the defendant was not exempt from the obligations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-12 at the time of the violation. Additionally, the defendant failed to meet his burden that the “newly discovered” evidence was not available at the time of the original hearing. Accordingly, the Panel denied the motion for relief of judgment and sustained the violation against the defendant.

City of Providence v. Arthur Toegemann, C.A. No. T09-0114 (December 9, 2009).pdf