Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (turn signal required).  Defendant argued that the trial judge’s decision was an error of law and clearly erroneous because the facts as presented by the officer failed to satisfy the requirements of the statute and because the judge credited the officer’s testimony over his.  The charging officer testified that the Defendant did not signal when making two turns, but also testified that no traffic in the area may have been affected by those turns.  Defendant testified at trial that he used his turn signal for each of the two turns, but also testified that there were five cars between his car and the officer’s cruiser when the turns were made.  The Panel explained that the language of the statute creates two distinct scenarios which may lead to a violation.  First, the statute requires that no “person shall turn a vehicle… unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.” See R.I.G.L. § 31-16-5.  This clause of the statute requires an officer to testify that he made a safety assessment and determined the motorist turned when it was unsafe to do so.  However, the Defendant here was charged with failing to signal, as required by the second clause of the statute: “[n]o person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal… in the event any other traffic may be affected by the movement.” Id.  To satisfy this clause of the offense, the prosecution must show only that it is possible that the movement affected other traffic.  Here, the Appeals Panel discounted the Defendant’s testimony that he used his turn signals, accepting instead the officer’s testimony that the Defendant did not signal.  However, the Panel adopted the Defendant’s testimony that there were five cars in the vicinity when the turns were made, despite testimony by the officer that there were no cars in the area.  The Panel held that the evidence supported a finding that Defendant did not signal and that the turn may possibly have affected other traffic, thereby satisfying the second clause of the statute.  Upon making this finding, the Appeals Panel sustained the violation.