Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the trial court’s decision to dismiss the violations of  R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and §31-17-5 (entering a private road or driveway). Defendant argued that all of the elements of R.I.G.L. 1956 §31-27-2.1 must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the state failed to meet its burden. The District Court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record showing that the officer had asked the defendant to submit to a chemical test. Further, the fact that the officer wrote “refused to sign” on the Rights for Use at Station form and the defendant admitted on the record that he did not take the chemical test was sufficient evidence that the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision and remanded the case back to the trial magistrate.