Overtaking on the Left

The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of 31-15-4, “Overtaking on left.” 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 then 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 that “he properly traveled around the vehicle after it pulled over to the side.” The Trial Judge found the Defendant guilty, and the Defendant appealed, arguing that the “evidence presented at trial was insufficient to demonstrate 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 a laned roadway violation based upon the same conduct. 

Pursuant to General Laws section 31-15-4, a motorist who passes another vehicle on the left must: “ (1) . . . provide[ ] a timely audible signal to another motorist whom he wishes to pass; and (2) . . . must pass to the left at a safe distance from the passed vehicle.” Here, the Appeals Panel found that these requirements were not met because the evidence suggested that the Defendant provided an audible signal to the other motorist not to notify the other motorist that he was passing, but rather “to express [his] displeasure that the motorist was using his cell phone.”  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 charged violation was sustained.State of Rhode Island v. Rasharn Young No. M19-0018 (January 25, 2021).pdf

Overtaking on the Left

The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-15-4, Overtaking on the Left.  A driver operating a FedEx truck testified that he was taking a left turn, having employed his left turn signal, when he was struck by a vehicle he never saw, coming from behind him, on his “left front tire – – left front bumper.” The Defendant elected not to testify.  The Trial Judge found the Defendant guilty because he felt that “once the FedEx vehicle begins to take the left-hand turn into the westbound lane of travel, he then has that right of way.”  The Trial Judge further found that there was no evidence that the Defendant attempted to “make his presence known, either through a signal or noise, or to indicate that he attempted to pass on the left, which is contemplated in the statute.” The Defendant appealed, arguing that “the Trial Judge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof by finding there was an absence of evidence as to whether the Appellant sounded his horn before the accident occurred.”

General Laws § 31-15-4 provides that “(1) the driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall give a timely, audible signal and shall pass to the left at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.” The Appeals Panel noted that while the “burden of persuasion never shifts from the state,” the burden of going forward with evidence may indeed “shift from side to side.” The Panel held that, because the state presented evidence suggesting that the Defendant failed to give an audible signal of his intent to pass on the left, ultimately it was up to the Defendant to rebut the allegation.  Because the Defendant did not provide evidence to the contrary, the Judge’s finding was not error. Due to these reasons, the Appeals Panel sustained the charged violation.State of Rhode Island v. John F. Nazarian IV, No. M20-0002 (March 29, 2021).pdf