Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). At trial, the trial magistrate found as credible a police officer’s testimony establishing that the speed limit where the violation occurred was thirty miles per hour. Moreover, the trial magistrate concluded that “by [Defendant’s] own admission[,] he was driving in violation of the speed limit. He said he was doing 35 mph and no more than 35 mph . . . [and] by his own admission he’s in violation of the statute.”

On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was clearly erroneous because the posted speed limit was thirty-five miles per hour. To support his argument, Defendant “attempted to present new evidence regarding the speed limit.” But the Appeals Panel’s review is “confined to a reading of the record,” and, therefore, new evidence may not be presented “during an appeal if doing so would require that the Panel reconsider questions of fact.” See Link v. State, 633 A.2d 1345, 1348 (R.I. 1993). As the determination of the speed limit is a question of fact, the Appeals Panel could not consider the new evidence. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.