Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-24-1 (times when lights required). The Defendant argued that his due process rights were compromised because the traffic citation was not signed on the back, which deprived him of notice of his court date and an opportunity to be heard. The Panel noted, however, that Rhode Island courts have consistently recognized that a mere defect in the traffic citation does not preclude a court from sustaining the charged violation, except where the error misled the defendant to his or her prejudice. Here, the Panel was satisfied that the Defendant was fully and fairly appraised of the offense and was not prejudiced because, even in the absence of the Officer’s signature, the information contained in the citation was sufficient to inform the Defendant of the necessary arraignment details. Accordingly, the Panel held that the charged violation should be sustained.