The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate abused his discretion by admitting into evidence the hearsay statements of a civilian witness who did not testify at the trial, violating her constitutional rights to confrontation and cross-examination. The witness owned the vehicle into which the Defendant collided, but neither witnessed the accident nor observed the Defendant’s operation of the vehicle prior to the accident. The trial magistrate admitted his statements to the police into evidence pursuant to the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule under Rhode Island Rules of Evidence 803(1). To qualify as a present sense impression, the statement must be made while the event is occurring or with only a slight lapse of time. The Panel held that because some time had elapsed between the accident and the Officer’s conversation with the witness, the application of Rule 803(1) was questionable. However, the Panel continued that the trial magistrate also stated on several occasions that the statements were not offered to prove the truth of the matter. Accordingly, the statements did not meet the definition of hearsay under Rule 801(c) and were admissible to prove facts used by the Officer to determine probable cause to arrest the motorist. The Panel concluded that the trial magistrate’s citation of Rule 803(1) instead of Rule 803(c) was a harmless error. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation.