Commercial Motor Vehicle Violation

Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-6 (commercial vehicle lanes of operation). A state trooper observed a tractor trailer traveling on the highway in a lane in which commercial vehicles are prohibited from traveling. As a result, the state trooper issued Defendant a citation. At trial, the trial magistrate based his decision on the state trooper’s uncontroverted testimony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was clearly erroneous because there was no evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s vehicle was primarily used for commercial purposes.

Here, the trial magistrate’s finding was supported by legally competent evidence because: (1) Defendant’s vehicle was a tractor trailer; (2) Defendant produced a commercial driver’s license at the time of the stop; and (3) Defendant’s vehicle had Department of Transportation markings, which were indicative of a commercial vehicle. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Utkur Rakhmanov, No. T19-0002 (May 6, 2019).pdf

Commercial Motor Vehicle Violation

Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-6 (commercial vehicle lanes of operation). A state trooper observed a tractor trailer traveling on the highway in a lane in which commercial vehicles are prohibited from traveling. As a result, the state trooper issued Defendant a citation. At trial, the trial magistrate based his decision on the state trooper’s uncontroverted testimony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was clearly erroneous because there was no evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s vehicle was not within one mile of a left-hand exit.

§ 31-27-6 provides that where signs notify drivers of the restriction, commercial vehicles are prohibited from traveling in the two leftmost lanes of the highway unless the driver is within one mile of a left-hand exit. The Appeal Panel held, however, that whether a vehicle was within one mile of a left-hand exit is an affirmative defense to the charged violation and, therefore, Defendant carried the burden of demonstrating that he was traveling within one mile of a left-hand exit.

As Defendant failed to present evidence showing that his vehicle was within one mile of a left-hand exit at the time of the stop, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s finding—which was based on uncontroverted testimony—was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Utkur Rakhmanov, No. T19-0002 (May 6, 2019).pdf

Commercial Motor Vehicle Violation

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-23-1(b) “Driving of unsafe vehicle – Commercial motor vehicle violation.”  Defendant argued that because he was an employee of the company that owned the truck, the safety violation for improperly inflated tires should have been issued to the company, not to him.  The Panel reviewed the applicable statute, which plainly states that any company or “any person” who uses a company’s vehicle is subject to penalty.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. John Ngotho, C.A. No. T12-0073 (January 20, 2013).pdf