The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Defendant argued that he was denied the right to a fair trial because the trial judge acted as both the prosecutor and fact-finder. Here, the Panel held that where the trial judge interrupted the Officer’s testimony to question about facts in evidence, he did so for purposes of clarification.  Accordingly, the Panel held that the Defendant’s due process rights were not compromised and upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations.