Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Rodriguez, Criminal No. 15-1969

• Decision Date: 24 June 1969
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 15-1969
• Citation: 7 V.I. 358
• Parties: GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS v. EDILBERTO RODRIGUEZ
• Court: U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

7 V.I. 358

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS v. EDILBERTO RODRIGUEZ

Criminal No. 15-1969

District Court of the Virgin Islands Div. of St. Croix

June 24, 1969

Municipal Court convicted defendant of operating his automobile in excess of speed limit and passing another vehicle while road ahead was not clear, and he appealed. The District Court, Maris, Circuit Judge, held that where officer testified that he observed defendant driving his automobile in excess of 35 mile speed limit but did not testify to defendant's rate of speed nor qualify himself as experienced in judging the speed of moving automobiles, his testimony was not competent to corroborate his evidence as to untested speedometer reading, and the evidence was sufficient to support the charge of improper passing of another vehicle.

Judgment reversed on speeding charge and Municipal Court directed to enter judgment of acquittal. Judgment upon charge of improper passing affirmed.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, for Government

EDWARD J. OCEAN, ESQ., Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, for defendant

MARIS, Circuit Judge

OPINION

MARIS, Circuit Judge

This is an appeal by the defendant from his conviction in the Municipal Court of charges of driving his automobile in excess of the speed limit and in passing anothervehicle while the road ahead was not clear. It appears that on December 16, 1968 the defendant was driving west on the Northside Road out of Christiansted where he was followed by a police officer riding a police motorcycle who clocked him on his speedometer at 51 miles per hour. The speed limit in that area was 35 miles per hour. The only evidence of the defendant's speed was the officer's testimony as to his speedometer reading. The officer testified that the speedometer had been tested for accuracy but did not say when this had been done and admitted that he had not been present at the test. It also appears that the defendant passed a stopped vehicle at a time when two other vehicles were approaching from the opposite direction and were between 75 and 100 feet away. The police officer stopped the defendant and charged him with speeding and improper passing of another vehicle. Following a trial in the Municipal Court the defendant was found guilty of both charges and judgments of conviction were entered against him as to each. From these judgments the defendant has appealed.

The defendant's conviction of speeding was based solely on the testimony of the police officer as to his speedometer reading without...