Defendant appealed the decision of a Trial Judge sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-18-5 (Crossing other than at crosswalks). Defendant, a pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle after crossing the street at a three-way intersection. The intersection Defendant walked through did not have a crosswalk. The responding officer spoke with Defendant and the vehicle operator. Then, the officer issued a citation to Defendant for failing to yield the right of way, where there was no crosswalk, by entering the intersection. The Trial Judge, finding that Defendant had been walking where there was no crosswalk, concluded that “that’s the City’s only burden, and therefore, . . . I do find her guilty of the charge.” The Appeals Panel, however, noted that the Trial Judge made no mention of whether he found that the defendant failed to yield the right of way to vehicles entering the roadway, as required by § 31-18-5. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that, without a finding with respect to that element, it was impossible to “pass upon the appropriateness of the order and the grounds upon which it rests.” The Appeals Panel further noted that the record contained no evidence regarding whether Defendant had, in fact, failed to yield the right of way, because there was no evidence detailing any actions taken by Defendant to discern whether she had a duty to yield the right of way prior to entering the roadway. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel found the Trial Judge’s decision clearly erroneous and granted Defendant’s appeal.