Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-5 (overtaking on the right). The Defendant argued that the Officer was improperly allowed to give expert-opinion testimony in the field of accident reconstruction though he was not certified as an expert in the field until five months after the accident. The District Court held that since the Officer expressly stated that his opinion was only his professional opinion, it was clear that the trial magistrate did not consider the Officer’s testimony as expert testimony. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.