Discovery

Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant had filed a Motion for Discovery and, when no discovery was received, filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. On the trial date Defendant still had not received the discovery he had requested and moved to dismiss. The trial judge offered Defendant a continuance to obtain the discovery, which Defendant declined. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss “based on the State Police’s failure to comply with the court ordered discovery request.” Rule 11 of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure provides a trial judge with discretion in choosing a remedy to a party’s failure to comply with a discovery order. The Appeals Panel held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Magistrate Noonan concurred in the judgment, noting that he would have dismissed the matter at trial due to the blatant discovery violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Domenick Connors, T18-0005 (August 6, 2018).pdf

Discovery

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that he was not provided with full discovery, a request for which he claimed had been granted by the East Providence Municipal Court. The Appeals Panel held that the Defendant never was granted discovery by the East Providence Municipal Court because, while the Defendant orally requested discovery, he never filed a written request. Under the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure 11(e), a motion or written request for discovery must be made within fourteen (14) days after the first appearance. Since the Defendant failed to make a written request within the 14 day period, the Defendant could not argue that he was prejudiced by any lack of discovery. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the Defendant.  

City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016).pdf

Discovery

The Providence Police Department appealed the trial judge’s decision dismissing Defendant’s charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(iii) (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older). At a scheduled trial date Defendant sought a continuance to request a police report. The trial judge granted the continuance and set a new trial date. In the interim, the Defendant, through his attorney, mailed a discovery request to the Providence Police Department and received no response. On the new trial date, after finding that the Providence Police Department had enough time to supply an answer to the discovery request and failed to so, the trial judge dismissed the charges pursuant to Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 11. The Appeals Panel noted that Rule 11(b) “requires that the court issue an order for discovery.” Because there was no record of any such order issued by the court, let alone a Motion to Compel filed and granted by the court, the Appeals Panel concluded that there was no violation of Rule 11, making dismissal by the trial judge premature. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel granted The Providence Department’s appeal and remanded the case for trial.

State of Rhode Island v. L.F., No. T16-0021 (August 22, 2017).pdf

Discovery

The Providence Police Department appealed the trial judge’s decision dismissing Defendant’s charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(iii) (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older) based upon an alleged discovery violation. The Defendant, through his attorney, had mailed a discovery request to the Providence Police Department. The Appeals Panel noted that, “[u]nder Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules, service must be made to the proper party to the litigation.” The Appeals Panel reasoned that because the Providence Police Department was not represented by counsel at trial, the Defendant’s discovery request should have been served directly upon the “prosecuting law enforcement officer,” whom it deemed to be the officer who had written the summons. The Appeals Panel also suggested that, because the discovery request was sent by regular mail rather than personally served by hand upon either the prosecuting law enforcement officer or his office, service was not proper under Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 27. The Appeals Panel granted The Providence Department’s appeal and remanded the case for trial.

State of Rhode Island v. L.F., No. T16-0021 (August 22, 2017).pdf

Discovery

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (Prima Facie Limits).  The Court held that it lacked the ability to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence and was confined to the record where the magistrate believed the officer’s testimony that the defendant had been speeding.  Also, the Appeals Panel held that the defendant failed to comply with the rules of procedure regarding discovery; thus, he should not be allowed a second chance to present evidence.  Accordingly, the violation was sustained.

State of Rhode Island v. Abdul Afrifa, C.A. No. T11-0083 (January 17, 2012).pdf

Discovery

Defendant  appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that it was within the discretion of the trial magistrate whether or not to dismiss the charge because of the trooper’s failure to comply with a discovery order. Furthermore, the trooper’s non-compliance with the discovery order, requesting mechanical records concerning the trooper’s car, his training records, and the specifications of the speed measurement device, did not have a material or prejudicial effect on the defendant. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 (August 18, 2009).pdf