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).  Defendant claimed that the trial magistrate erred in his questioning of the officer.  The District Court held that no objection was made during trial and, consequently, the issue was not preserved for review.  However, even if the issue had been properly preserved for appeal the Court stated that the trial magistrate acted in accordance with Rule 614 of the Rules of Evidence as his questioning was primarily for clarification purposes.  The Court went on to note that even if additional information was extracted from the witness, the trial judge did not make note of it on the record and, therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced.  However, the Court reversed the violation on other grounds.