Discovery

The Providence Police Department appealed the trial judge’s decision dismissing Defendant’s charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(iii) (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older). At a scheduled trial date Defendant sought a continuance to request a police report. The trial judge granted the continuance and set a new trial date. In the interim, the Defendant, through his attorney, mailed a discovery request to the Providence Police Department and received no response. On the new trial date, after finding that the Providence Police Department had enough time to supply an answer to the discovery request and failed to so, the trial judge dismissed the charges pursuant to Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 11. The Appeals Panel noted that Rule 11(b) “requires that the court issue an order for discovery.” Because there was no record of any such order issued by the court, let alone a Motion to Compel filed and granted by the court, the Appeals Panel concluded that there was no violation of Rule 11, making dismissal by the trial judge premature. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel granted The Providence Department’s appeal and remanded the case for trial.

State of Rhode Island v. L.F., No. T16-0021 (August 22, 2017).pdf

Discovery

The Providence Police Department appealed the trial judge’s decision dismissing Defendant’s charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(iii) (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older) based upon an alleged discovery violation. The Defendant, through his attorney, had mailed a discovery request to the Providence Police Department. The Appeals Panel noted that, “[u]nder Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules, service must be made to the proper party to the litigation.” The Appeals Panel reasoned that because the Providence Police Department was not represented by counsel at trial, the Defendant’s discovery request should have been served directly upon the “prosecuting law enforcement officer,” whom it deemed to be the officer who had written the summons. The Appeals Panel also suggested that, because the discovery request was sent by regular mail rather than personally served by hand upon either the prosecuting law enforcement officer or his office, service was not proper under Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 27. The Appeals Panel granted The Providence Department’s appeal and remanded the case for trial.

State of Rhode Island v. L.F., No. T16-0021 (August 22, 2017).pdf