07/16/2018
Defendants, in a consolidated case, appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicles). The trial judge found that Defendants were driving their motorcycles with one to three car lengths separating them from the vehicle ahead. Based on a State Trooper’s testimony as an accident reconstruction expert, the trial judge concluded that the distance between the vehicles should have been greater. Defendants argued, among other things, that the expert testimony was impermissible bolstering. The Rhode Island Supreme Court considers opinion testimony to be bolstering if “the opinion testimony has the same substantive import as if it squarely addressed and bolstered another witness’s credibility.” State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467, 476 (R.I. 2010) (quoting State v. Miller, 679 A.2d 867, 872 (R.I. 1996)). The Appeals Panel held that the State Trooper’s testimony was not impermissible bolstering because it did not have “the same substantive import as if it squarely addressed and bolstered another witness’s credibility.” Id. (quoting State v. Miller, 679 A.2d 867, 872 (R.I. 1996)). The State Trooper “merely applied her training in accident reconstruction to the factual scenario Trooper Kelly provided to help the trial magistrate determine the import of the facts at issue.” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.
*Note: On October 16, 2018, the Appeals Panel amended the decision to remove footnote number 2.