03/30/2015
The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to deny his Motion to Vacate a default judgment entered on a charged violation of R.I.G.L. (use of multiple beam lamps) because the Defendant failed to appear. The Defendant argued that his absence should have been excused because he had to work. The Panel found that the Defendant was required to follow the course of conduct that a reasonably prudent person would take in similar circumstances. The Panel held that because the Defendant was fully informed of the relevant date and because “choosing to go to work,” even if the motorist is concerned that he might lose his job, is not a legally sufficient reason to excuse his absence, the trial magistrate did not abuse his discretion when he denied the Motion to Vacate. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to deny the Motion to Vacate.
State of Rhode Island v. Robert Belota, C.A. No. 14-0021 (March 30, 2015).pdf