Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the officer’s testimony at trial concerning an “affidavit” was sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutorily required “sworn report,” despite the different terminology that the officer used. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision and sustained the charge against the defendant.