Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-3 (immediate notice of accident). Defendant claimed that the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous because the state failed to provide evidence sufficient to sustain either charge. The Court held that the defendant’s admission that he was driving and struck a light pole was not sufficient by itself to sustain the charge of § 31-14-1 because the officer did not provide any evidence that the defendant operated his vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit or that he faced any hazard which required him to reduce his speed. Further, the Court held that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence to sustain the violation of § 31-26-3 because the officer failed to provide a timeline of events and did not prove that the defendant failed to use the quickest means available to notify the police of the accident or that the defendant’s vehicle was so disabled as to prevent its normal and safe operation where the defendant drove the vehicle home after the accident and then called the police. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the trial judge and dismissed the violations.