Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-3 (conditions requiring reduced speeds). Defendant argued that he could only be charged with one of the two violations because the same conduct formed the basis for both charges. The Court held that this was a double jeopardy argument and could only be raised by a motion before trial. Since the defendant failed to make such a motion, he waived his right to appeal the issue. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.