6th Amendment

Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-26-5 (duty in accident resulting in damage to highway fixtures). Police officers responded to a report that a truck struck a telephone pole. Subsequently, officers located a vehicle that matched a reported description of the truck involved in the accident. At trial, the trial judge inferred that Defendant’s vehicle struck the telephone pole based on a police officer’s testimony that (1) Defendant’s vehicle had damage consistent with striking a pole and (2) Defendant admitted to recently being in the area of the accident.  The Appeals Panel noted that Defendant’s vehicle “matched the description of the vehicle provided by dispatch,” but commented that the testimony about the dispatch description was offered only to show why the officer apprehended Defendant, not for the truth of its contents.

On appeal, Defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated since he was not able to cross-examine the eye-witness who reported the accident. The opportunity to cross-examine the state’s witnesses is essential to the concept of due process, see State v. Doctor, 690 A.2d 321, 327 (R.I. 1997), but the Appeals Panel concluded that the right to cross-examine witnesses is “limited only to those witnesses presented at trial.” Here, the state did not present the eye-witness who reported the accident and, therefore, the Appeals Panel held that Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Terry Rigney T19-0014  (September 10, 2019).pdf

6th Amendment

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated because he had additional questions for the officer that he was not allowed to ask on cross-examination. However, the Appeals Panel held that these questions were not raised or asked at trial. Following the “raise-or-waive” rule, the Court held that it was precluded from considering on appeal issues not properly presented before the trial court. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.City of East Providence v. James Folan, C.A. No. M13-0016 (January 28, 2014).pdf

6th Amendment

Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  Moments before trial, the Defendant pleaded guilty.  Following his guilty plea, the trial judge imposed an enhanced sentence under the Act.  The Defendant then appealed, arguing that his fourth conviction was unlawful because he was not made aware of his right to counsel pursuant to Rule 6 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure.  The Panel explained that the purpose of Rule 6 was to prevent involuntary pleas at the arraignment phase.  Here, the Defendant entered his guilty plea a month after his arraignment, on the day of trial.  Additionally, the Panel noted that at his arraignment the Defendant was given a courtesy warning that he could face a loss of license for up to two years and that no right to counsel is guaranteed in civil court.  However, the Panel remanded in part to the trial judge to make specific findings of fact that the Defendant’s continued operation of a motor vehicle would pose a substantial traffic safety hazard, as required under the Act.

State of Rhode Island v. Jacob Botella, C.A. No. T11-0075 (February 7, 2012).pdf

6th Amendment

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway violation).  The defendant was not given an opportunity to cross examine an officer.  Accordingly, the Appeals Panel held that the defendant was prejudiced and dismissed the charge against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. George Kornitzer, No. T11-0031 (August 17, 2011).pdf

6th Amendment

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-17-6 (yielding to an emergency vehicle) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required).  The Appeals Panel noted that the defendant was not prejudiced when the trial magistrate did not allow the defendant’s father to testify on his behalf because the defendant told the court that his father would merely discuss how he was treated by the police and not that his father could refute some of the officer’s testimony as it related to the charged offenses.  Thus, because the defendant did not disclose the possible testimony to the trial magistrate at trial, the defendant was not permitted to raise that issue on appeal.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violations.

Town of North Providence v. Dennis Gagne, C.A. No. M10-0026 (April 11, 2011).pdf

6th Amendment

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that even though one of the officers was not present at trial, the defendant could have called him pursuant to Rule 12 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, the defendant failed to make a motion or objection at trial and, therefore, any objection or defense is considered waived for review on appeal. Accordingly, because the defendant failed to raise the issue at trial, the Court sustained the violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Rodney Lambert, C.A. T10-0085 (January 26, 2011).pdf