Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant was taken into custody under a suspicion of driving under the influence. At the police station, Defendant agreed to take a chemical test, but initially failed to supply enough air into the breathalyzer. The officer gave Defendant a second opportunity to give a sufficient breath sample, but Defendant refused to take the test unless the officer informed him of when the breathalyzer was last calibrated. The test was then terminated, and Defendant was charged with the aforementioned violation. Defendant argued that the trial judge exceeded his role as a neutral fact finder by soliciting responses which assisted the State in meeting its burden of proof. A trial judge “has the discretion to elicit testimony that will clarify any confusion caused by prior examination.” See State v. Figueras, 644 A.2d 291, 293 (R.I. 1994) (citing State v. Giordano, 440 A.2d 742, 745 (R.I. 1982)). Even if a trial judge exceeds that discretion, “the error is harmless if the [judge’s] overall demeanor is neutral and impartial.” See id. at 294. Here, the trial judge raised questions about details that were not mentioned on direct or cross examination, including what sounds the breathalyzer machine made and what those sounds suggested. But the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge did not exceed his role as a neutral fact finder because the trial judge’s overall demeanor remained natural and impartial throughout the trial. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial judge.