Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-26-5 (duty in accident resulting in damage to highway fixtures). The police responded to a call stating that a vehicle had struck a road sign. Defendant’s vehicle matched the description, and her vehicle had damage consistent with striking a road sign, so the police pulled her over and, despite her denials, issued Defendant a summons. At trial, the prosecution presented the officer who issued the summons, a police officer who observed damage to the road sign, and a witness who saw “a vehicle” hit the road sign. Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial judge improperly admitted hearsay testimony when he allowed the police officer to testify about the call made to the police station, which described the accident and the vehicle involved. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that “an officer may testify about a message received through dispatch when ‘[t]he entire purpose of [the] testimony [is] to show why [an officer] apprehended [a] defendant[,] . . . because the radio message [is] not offered to prove the defendant’s guilt.’” The Appeals Panel held that the testimony was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove Defendant’s guilt. Instead, “the testimony was offered to establish that [the officer] was on notice of the accident and the suspect vehicle’s description.” Having found that way, however, the Appeals Panel proceeded to find the evidence against Defendant sufficient to prove that she was the operator of the vehicle in the accident because the officer “testified that ‘the vehicle behind [Appellant] point[ed] toward [Appellant’s] vehicle,’ and that Appellant’s ‘vehicle matched a description called in by one of the witnesses.’” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial judge.