Appeals Panel
03/30/2015
City of Cranston v. In Re- Richard W. Audette, C.A. No. T14-0036 (March 30, 2015)
Default Judgment
The Defendant appealed a default judgment entered by the trial magistrate, sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-10-1 (no license on person), § 31-22-22(g) (no seat belt-operator), § 31-21-4 (places where parking or stopping prohibited), § 31-15-12.1 (entering intersection), and § 31-47-9 (operating a motor vehicle without evidence of insurance). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate violated Rule 7 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules because he should not have entered a default judgment when the Defendant refused to offer a plea. The Panel held that because the Defendant appeared in his capacity as beneficiary to the trust and not as the licensed operator, Rule 7 did not apply. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to enter a default judgment.
City of Cranston v. In Re- Richard W. Audette, C.A. No. T14-0036 (March 30, 2015).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/30/2015
City of Cranston v. In Re- Richard W. Audette, C.A. No. T14-0036 (March 30, 2015)
Due Process
The Defendant appealed a default judgment entered by the trial magistrate, sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-10-1 (no license on person), § 31-22-22(g) (no seat belt-operator), § 31-21-4 (places where parking or stopping prohibited), § 31-15-12.1 (entering intersection), and § 31-47-9 (operating a motor vehicle without evidence of insurance). The Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated because he was not allowed the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Panel held that though the Defendant failed to appear at his arraignment, because he presented evidence in his defense as two of the violations – § 31-10-1 (no license on person) and § 31-47-9 (operating a vehicle without evidence of insurance) – in the interest of justice, those two violations must be dismissed. Accordingly, after reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the Panel denied the Defendant’s appeal in part and granted it in part.
City of Cranston v. In Re- Richard W. Audette, C.A. No. T14-0036 (March 30, 2015).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/30/2015
City of Cranston v. In Re- Richard W. Audette, C.A. No. T14-0036 (March 30, 2015)
Procedure
The Defendant appealed a default judgment entered by the trial magistrate, sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-10-1 (no license on person), § 31-22-22(g) (no seat belt-operator), § 31-21-4 (places where parking or stopping prohibited), § 31-15-12.1 (entering intersection), and § 31-47-9 (operating a motor vehicle without evidence of insurance). The Defendant argued that the Traffic Tribunal did not have subject matter jurisdiction because he identified himself at arraignment as the beneficiary of a trust rather than in his capacity as the operator of the vehicle. The Panel held that because the Defendant was served with the violations in his capacity as operator of the vehicle, the Traffic Tribunal did properly have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision.
City of Cranston v. In Re- Richard W. Audette, C.A. No. T14-0036 (March 30, 2015).pdf