08/27/2015
The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (operating without evidence of insurance), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-8-1 (operation of vehicles without evidence of insurance), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27.1-4 (aggressive driving), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal requires), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to traffic control devices), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop sign), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-1 (right half of road). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in sustaining the speeding and aggressive driving violations because there was insufficient evidence to support the speeding violation and, in order to sustain an aggressive driving violation, there must be a sufficient speeding violation. The Panel agreed that there must be a speeding violation in order to sustain an aggressive driving violation. The Panel held that because there was insufficient evidence to support the speeding violation, the trial magistrate erred in sustaining both the speeding and aggressive driving violations. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the trial magistrate’s decision and dismissed the charged violations of aggressive driving and speeding.
City of Woonsocket v. Nathan Belisle, C.A. No. T15-0015 (August 27, 2015).pdf