Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficiently credible to prove the refusal case to the standard of clear and convincing evidence because, though there was evidence presented by the Officer that indicated he had reasonable grounds to believe the Defendant was under the influence, there were discrepancies in the testimony of the Officer that made his testimony not credible. The District Court noted that the Court’s role is limited to determine whether the Panel was clearly erroneous in its decision. The Court held that though the Officer had admittedly “made a mess” of his testimony in a District Court trial because, he claimed, he had not adequately reviewed his police report, the trial judge had the discretion to believe the testimony and, because the testimony was competent evidence, the trial judge was not clearly erroneous by relying on it. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the Defendant.