RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

Home » Traffic Violations

Conditions Requiring Reduced Speed

District Court

District Court
01/24/2019
Dominiqua Newkirk v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 16-100 (January 24, 2019)

Conditions Requiring Reduced Speed

Defendant appealed a decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-3 (Conditions requiring Reduced Speed). Defendant was involved in an automobile collision. The citing officer who responded to the accident was trained as an accident reconstructionist and, after analyzing the conditions of the road and the conditions of the vehicles, concluded that Defendant had been speeding. Defendant was cited for violating R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding), but the citation was dismissed after the trial court found a lack of clear and convincing evidence as to the actual speed Defendant had been traveling prior to the accident. The trial magistrate, however, upheld the conditions requiring reduced speed citation. Defendant argued that the citation for conditions requiring reduced speed could not be sustained if the citation for speeding did not have clear and convincing evidence to uphold it. The District Court, however, noted that it could not afford Defendant a new trial and was bound to accept the trial judge’s factual determinations if supported by competent evidence of the record. The District Court then found that there was no basis upon which to set aside Defendant’s convictions based upon the insufficiency of evidence. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision and denied Defendant’s appeal.

Dominiqua Newkirk v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 16-100 (January 24, 2019).pdf

Appeals Panel

Appeals Panel
08/23/2016
City of Providence v. Dominiqua Newkirk, No. T15-0028 (August 23, 2016)

Conditions Requiring Reduced Speed

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-3 (“conditions requiring reduced speed”). Defendant argued that that § 31-14-3 does not meet the constitutional test of reasonable certainty as set forth in State v. Scofield, 138 A.2d 415 (R.I. 1958). The Appeals Panel held that § 31-14-3 does withstand the scrutiny of the constitutional test of reasonable certainty because the statute’s language is definite enough and incorporates § 31-14-1 by reference. § 31-14-1 states that a motorist must reduce his or her speed when approaching hazards like an intersection. These two statutes read together fairly appraise motorists of when they must reduce their speeds.  Accordingly, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

City of Providence v. Dominiqua Newkirk, No. T15-0028 (August 23, 2016).pdf

Appeals Panel
06/17/2014
State of Rhode Island vs. Nicholas Gelfuso, C.A. No. T14-0024 Conditions Requiring Reduced Speed

Conditions Requiring Reduced Speed

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-3 (Conditions Requiring Reduced Speed).  The charging Trooper testified that he was assisting another Trooper with a motor vehicle stop on Route 95, stopped in the breakdown lane with his cruiser’s emergency lights flashing, when Defendant passed without reducing his speed or yielding the lane as required by the statute when passing an emergency vehicle with its lights flashing.  The Trooper testified that there were no vehicles behind Defendant at the time Defendant passed the Trooper’s position.  Defendant argued the judge’s decision was an error of law because the Trooper did not provide specific testimony that Defendant could have changed lanes or reduced speed in a safe manner.  The Appeals Panel agreed that the statute requires a motorist to reduce speed or change lanes only if the reduction in speed or lane change can be accomplished safely, but that the Trooper’s testimony that no vehicles were behind Defendant indicated that the reduction in speed could have been made safely.  Therefore, it was not necessary for the Trooper to expressly testify that the reduction in speed could have been made safely.  Accordingly, the Appeals Panel sustained the violation.

 

State of Rhode Island vs. Nicholas Gelfuso, C.A. No. T14-0024 (June 17, 2014).pdf