Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that there was no evidence to support the defendant’s claim that there was confusion or prejudice because the arresting officer read the defendant and another defendant their rights at the same time. Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous and the Court affirmed that decision sustaining the violation against defendant.