Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in finding there was a sworn report because the submitted report contained inaccuracies. The Court noted the prevailing law holding that the State is required to prove that a sworn report was created, thereby acknowledging that prior District Court opinions on this issue were no longer good law.  The Court went on to hold that the State does not need to prove that the report is accurate in all significant particulars because Link v. State, 633 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1993), explained that the State is not bound by the contents of the sworn report. Accordingly, despite the inaccuracies in the sworn report, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.