Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-24-1 (times when lights are required). The Court held that the defendant cited no case law requiring that a defendant be identified in court in a civil action in order for a charge to be sustained. Furthermore, the defendant’s counsel identified him as the defendant. Thus, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.