Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Although there was no in-court identification of the defendant, the Court held that the evidence on record showed that it was highly probable that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle where he responded numerous times to his name at trial. Thus, the state met its burden and proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation against the defendant.