Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate abused his discretion by sustaining the refusal charge because the Officer’s report was not properly sworn before a notary as required by § 31-27-2.1. Here, the Officer appeared before the magistrate and testified that his report was not properly sworn, but further testified as to the information contained in the report. The Panel, citing Link v. State, 622 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1993), held that a chemical refusal charge can be sustained even in the absence of a sworn report where there is sworn testimony for the court to consider. As such, the Panel held that the trial magistrate did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the charge despite a defect in the report because the live testimony at trial rendered the defect inconsequential. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.