Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that where the defendant agreed to submit to a chemical test which produced a deficient sample, the state had the burden to prove that the breathalyzer was certified for accuracy and the person conducting the test was competent to do so, as described in § 31-27-2. Here, the testimony of the arresting trooper and an employee of the Department of Health provided sufficient evidence that the requirements of § 31-27-2 were met. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.