Defendant appealed a decision by a trial judge upholding a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-30 (texting while driving). The trial centered around two witnesses: the citing officer, who testified to observing defendant’s phone screen “clearly playing” a “video” on his screen for “several seconds”; and the defendant, who testified that he had been making a phone call, did not recall playing a video, and offered to provide cell phone records to substantiate his defense. The trial judge, crediting the officer’s testimony, refused to allow the defendant to introduce his phone records, stating that “[defendant’s] phone record doesn’t mean anything . . . [y]ou could be . . . watching Donald Duck,” and found defendant guilty of texting while driving. The Appeals Panel, however, found that the trial judge abused his discretion and overlooked potentially material evidence by not allowing defendant to introduce his cell phone records, which may have substantiated his claimed defense. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel granted defendant’s appeal and remanded the case for further findings.