Procedure

Defendant appealed from the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22(g) (Safety Belt Use – Operator).  A police officer testified that he observed the motorist driving while not wearing a seatbelt.  At the conclusion of the officer’s testimony the Defendant asked the trial judge for a continuance so that he might be able to obtain video surveillance footage showing he was wearing his seat belt.  The trial judge denied the request for a continuance and sustained the charge.  The Panel noted that a request for a continuance “is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge” and may be reversed only upon a finding that the trial judge abused his or her discretion.  Here, the judge denied the Defendant’s request because the Defendant had two months to obtain the video and made no attempt to do so, and any video still in existence was unlikely to show the inside of Defendant’s vehicle.  At the time of the appeal, the Defendant still did not have possession of any video footage.  The Panel explained that the trial judge did not improperly exercise his discretion when denying the Defendant’s request for a continuance.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.

City of Woonsocket v. Ronald Ribero, C.A. No. M12-0020 (May 15, 2013).pdf