Turn Signal Required

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required).  Defendant argued that the trial judge’s decision was an error of law and clearly erroneous because the facts as presented by the officer failed to satisfy the requirements of the statute and because the judge credited the officer’s testimony over his.  The charging officer testified that the Defendant did not signal when making two turns, but also testified that no traffic in the area may have been affected by those turns.  Defendant testified at trial that he used his turn signal for each of the two turns, but also testified that there were five cars between his car and the officer’s cruiser when the turns were made.  The Panel explained that the language of the statute creates two distinct scenarios which may lead to a violation.  First, the statute requires that no “person shall turn a vehicle… unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.” See R.I.G.L. § 31-16-5.  This clause of the statute requires an officer to testify that he made a safety assessment and determined the motorist turned when it was unsafe to do so.  However, the Defendant here was charged with failing to signal, as required by the second clause of the statute: “[n]o person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal… in the event any other traffic may be affected by the movement.” Id.  To satisfy this clause of the offense, the prosecution must show only that it is possible that the movement affected other traffic.  Here, the Appeals Panel discounted the Defendant’s testimony that he used his turn signals, accepting instead the officer’s testimony that the Defendant did not signal.  However, the Panel adopted the Defendant’s testimony that there were five cars in the vicinity when the turns were made, despite testimony by the officer that there were no cars in the area.  The Panel held that the evidence supported a finding that Defendant did not signal and that the turn may possibly have affected other traffic, thereby satisfying the second clause of the statute.  Upon making this finding, the Appeals Panel sustained the violation.

Town of North Providence v. Eugene Smith, C.A. No. M14-0003 (July 10, 2014).pdf

Turn Signal Required

Defendant appealed the decision of the trail judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required).  The Court held that the decision of the trial judge was in error because the officer never testified that the defendant affected any other traffic by not giving an appropriate signal.  Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the trial magistrate and dismissed the violation.

City of Warwick v. Antonio Xavier, C.A. No. M11-0016 (October 31, 2011).pdf

Turn Signal Required

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal requred) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-23.3-2 (windshields and windows obscured by nontransparent materials).  The Appeals Panel held that the officer’s testimony did not go into any detail about the conditions surrounding the traffic stop; thus, it was not proven that the defendant’s failure to use his turn signal affected traffic.  Additionally, the Court held that an element of  § 31-23.3-3 requires that the defendant owned the vehicle.  Here, the defendant was not the owner.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the violatons.

City of Cranston v. Jose Rodriguez, C.A. No. T11-0047 (September 14, 2011).pdf

Turn Signal Required

The Town of Johnston appealed the decision of the trial judge dismissing the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-3 (passing of vehicles proceeding in opposite direction) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required). The Appeals Panel held that because the record contained no evidence of any other vehicles being in the vicinity of the defendant when he failed to use his turn signal, there was  insufficient evidence that any vehicles could have been affected by defendant’s turn as required by § 31-16-5. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate.

Town of Johnston v. Gregory Acciardo , C.A. No. T09-0078 (September 18, 2009) Per.pdf

Turn Signal Required

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required). The Court held that because there was insufficient evidence on the record to sustain the charge against the defendant and that the trial judge mischaracterized the testimony at trial, the decision to sustain the charge was clearly erroneous. Thus, the Court dismissed the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Bruce Reilly, C.A. No. T09-0027 (June17, 2009).pdf

Turn Signal Required

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits), § 31-16-5 (turn signal required), and § 31-22-22 (safety belt use – child restraint). The Panel held that the trial judge’s decision to uphold the turn signal violation was clearly erroneous because, while there was testimony that the Defendant failed to use a turn signal, there was no evidence that the movement of the Defendant’s vehicle was without reasonable safety. Accordingly, the Panel dismissed the turn signal required violation.

City of Cranston v. Krisel Baumet, C.A. T08-0134 (December 3, 2008).pdf

Turn Signal Required

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate abused his discretion by crediting the Trooper’s testimony because although he admitted to not using his turn signal, he said he turned with reasonable safety to avoid an imminent accident. The Panel held that there was sufficient evidence that the Defendant did not turn with reasonable safety because the Trooper testified that he had to step on his brakes to avoid an accident with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Michael O’Brien, C.A. T08-0135 (November 26, 2008).pdf

Turn Signal Required

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that the turn signal violation was not proven to a standard of clear and convincing evidence because there was no evidence presented that “any other traffic [was] affected by the movement” of his vehicle. The Panel noted that to sustain a turn signal violation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant failed to use a turn signal, that other traffic was affected by the movement of the vehicle, and that the movement of the vehicle was not made with reasonable safety. The Panel held that because the prosecution did not introduce evidence that the Defendant’s movement affected other traffic or was made without reasonable safety, the turn signal violation must be dismissed.

City of Providence v. Emilio Taylor, C.A. T08-0097 (November 5, 2008).pdf

Turn Signal Required

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway violation), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (failure to use a turn signal). The Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in sustaining the turn signal violation because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Here, the Trooper testified that he observed the Defendant made “several aggressive and erratic lane changes” without using his motorcycle’s turn signal when he “[came] upon slower traffic.”  The Panel held that the Trooper’s testimony was sufficient to establish that the Defendant moved right and left on a roadway without using a turn signal and that his failure to signal likely affected the traffic around him. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Robert Braddock, C.A. T08-0073 (July 30, 2008).pdf