Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The defendant claimed that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in crediting the Trooper’s testimony over his own.  Specifically, the Defendant argued that he exceeded the speed limit to avoid another motorist who twice hit the rear of Defendant’s car, placing the Defendant in fear for his life.  The Trooper testified that he had not heard the Defendant’s story at the scene, but acknowledged that he was accompanied by another Trooper.  The Defendant testified that he told his story about being in danger to the other Trooper.  The Panel noted that the trial judge inquired as to the merits of the Defendant’s story by questioning the Trooper.  The Panel did not reach the issue of whether the Defendant’s version of events, if true, would constitute a defense, noting that the trial judge “clearly assessed the credibility of the trooper and the Appellant and then sustained the charge.” The Panel noted that the trial judge clearly assessed the credibility of both the Trooper and the Defendant and that the Trooper testified to the calibration of his radar device and to his training in the use of radar.  The Panel held that the trial judge did not err in adopting the Trooper’s testimony.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.