Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the charging officer’s testimony at trial concerning an “affidavit” was sufficient evidence for the statutorily required “sworn report,” despite the different terminology that the officer had used. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to sustain the charge against the defendant.