Listen to this article
Where a Pawtucket Municipal Court judge sustained a charged violation of G.L. §31-17-2 (“Vehicles Turning Left/Right – Failure to Yield Right of Way”), the motorist’s appeal is untimely and meritless, so the judge’s decision should be affirmed.
“At trial, Officer Levasseur testified that on November 10, 2023 at approximately 12:38 p.m. he responded to the intersection of Humes and Broad Streets for a motor vehicle accident. … When Officer Levasseur arrived, he observed Mr. Eliud Jimenez (Mr. Jimenez’), on the ground with obvious injuries. … He requested a rescue for Mr. Jimenez and, while waiting, obtained his statement regarding the accident. … According to Officer Levasseur, Mr. Jimenez stated that he had been ‘riding his scooter northbound in the bike lane on Broad Street during which time, uh, Miss Hernandez attempted to turn left from the southbound lane onto Humes resulting in the accident.’ … Officer Levasseur was able to review the video surveillance footage from a nearby business which he asserts confirmed Mr. Jimenez’s account. … He also spoke with Ms. Hernandez who, he says, confirmed Mr. Jimenez’s statement. …
“Mr. Jimenez testified that he was riding in the bike lane when Appellant attempted to turn down a side street and collided with him. … He stated that he did not see Appellant until it was ‘too late for [him] to do anything about it by that point.’ …
“The Court would note that although the motorist’s appeal was filed outside of the ten (10) day period provided for in RITT Rule 21(a), in the interest of justice based certain conflicts with the dates involved, this court has decided to hear the appeal and decide it on the merits. …
“In the instant case, the Trial Judge found Mr. Jimenez’s testimony credible that he was properly on the bike path, that he was in the right lane where he belonged, when Appellant crossed the lane of travel and struck Mr. Jimenez. …
“As the members of this Panel did not have an opportunity to view the live hearing testimony of Appellant, the Panel declines to second-guess the Trial Judge’s impressions as he was able to ‘appraise [the] witness[’s] demeanor and to take into account other realities that cannot be grasped from a reading of a cold record.’ … Therefore, this Panel will not disturb the Trial Judge’s credibility determinations or his assessment of the weight of the evidence in this case. … As such, the Trial Judge found that because (a) Mr. Jimenez was on the bike path where he belonged, (b) that he was in the right spot, and (c) Appellant should have yielded to persons in the bike lane and did not; Appellant failed to yield the right of way to Mr. Jimenez. …
“This Panel has reviewed the entire record in this matter. Having done so, the members of this Panel are satisfied that the Trial Judge’s decision was neither clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record nor arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. The substantial rights of the Appellant have not been prejudiced. Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal is denied.”
State v. Hernandez (Lawyers Weekly No. 75-011-24) (6 pages) (Per curiam) (Traffic Tribunal) (C.A. No. M24-0002) (July 8, 2024).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.