Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant claimed the trial magistrate applied the wrong evidentiary standard of proof because he stated “clear and convincing evidence is not a hard standard to meet.” The Court held that the magistrate’s statement was an expression of opinion and that the clear and convincing standard “would undoubtedly be viewed as ‘not hard’ in comparison to the criminal standard [of] beyond a reasonable doubt.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that the magistrate did not misapply the applicable standard of clear and convincing. Thus, the violation was sustained.