Stop sign

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-09 (obedience to stop sign). Defendant claimed that he came to a complete stop at the stop sign before turning a corner, and that the trial magistrate’s ruling was clearly erroneous because he credited the testimony of the officer over his own.  However, the Appeals Panel held that only the finder of fact may asses the credibility of witnesses. Here, the trial magistrate chose to believe the officer’s testimony that he had an unobstructed and clear view of defendant when he slowed down but did not come to a complete stop.  Accordingly, the Appeals Panel sustained the violation.

Town of Smithfield v. Matthew Connole, C.A. No. T14-0014 (September 3, 2014).pdf

Stop sign

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop sign). Defendant argued that the decision of the trial judge was in error because he held that the defendant was required to stop not only at the stop sign next to the cross walk, but again at the point nearest the intersecting highway. The Court held that § 31-20-9 only requires that a motorist stop at the point nearest the intersecting highway in the event that there is not a crosswalk or stop line. Here, the Court held that the defendant did not violate the statute even though he did not stop at the point nearest the intersecting highway because he stopped at the crosswalk next to the stop sign. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the trial judge and dismissed the violation.City of Woonsocket v. Muhammad Hafez-Soulaiman, C.A. No. M12-0012 (December 18, 2012).pdf