Defendant appealed a decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-3 (Conditions requiring Reduced Speed). Defendant was involved in an automobile collision. The citing officer who responded to the accident was trained as an accident reconstructionist and, after analyzing the conditions of the road and the conditions of the vehicles, concluded that Defendant had been speeding. Defendant was cited for violating R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding), but the citation was dismissed after the trial court found a lack of clear and convincing evidence as to the actual speed Defendant had been traveling prior to the accident. The trial magistrate, however, upheld the conditions requiring reduced speed citation. Defendant argued that the citation for conditions requiring reduced speed could not be sustained if the citation for speeding did not have clear and convincing evidence to uphold it. The District Court, however, noted that it could not afford Defendant a new trial and was bound to accept the trial judge’s factual determinations if supported by competent evidence of the record. The District Court then found that there was no basis upon which to set aside Defendant’s convictions based upon the insufficiency of evidence. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision and denied Defendant’s appeal.