Defendant appealed a decision of the Trial Judge of the North Kingstown Municipal Court sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). At trial, the officer testified that he was trained at the academy to detect speeding violations and in the use of radar devices. The officer also testified that he “clocked” the defendant at 63 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone, and then “continued to do so for about a half a mile” before stopping the Defendant for speeding. The Defendant then testified, stating that he was not speeding and that the officer “only paced him for a few seconds” before stopping him. The Trial Judge found the North Kingstown officer’s testimony credible and found the Defendant guilty. The Defendant appealed.

On appeal, the Defendant argued the prosecutor failed to offer evidence of speeding. The Appeals Panel agreed, noting that it could not determine from the record whether the officer used a radar device or his speedometer to measure the Appellant’s speed. In either event, the Panel determined the officer’s testimony was insufficient to be admitted into evidence. In the case of a speedometer, the officer is required to testify about the “calibration” or “operational efficiency” of the device used to measure a vehicle’s speed for the testimony to be admissible. State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128, 132 (1975) (quoting State v. Barrows, 90 R.I. 150, 154, 156 A.2d 81, 83 (1959)). Here, because the officer failed to testify regarding the operational efficiency of the speedometer used to measure the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle, his testimony was insufficient under Mancino. If the officer used a radar device to measure the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Appeals Panel found that his testimony failed to establish the operational efficiency of that equipment. Therefore, the officer failed to meet the first test requirement under Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (1974), that “the operational efficiency of the radar unit was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method.” . While the officer’s testimony did meet the second requirement of Sprague regardingthe officer’s training and experience in the use of a radar unit, the Appeals Panel found it lacked the first requirement, was insufficient and, therefore, inadmissible. Because the Appeals Panel found the officer’s testimony inadmissible under Mancino and Sprague for either method of measuring a vehicle’s speed (speedometer or radar device), the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof and the Trial Judge’s decision was “clearly erroneous.” The Appeals Panel granted the Defendant’s appeal and dismissed the violation.