Showing results 1-2 of 2.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"We conclude that the used Breathalyzer test ampoules are not material evidence in a constitutional sense and nondisclosure of the ampoules caused by routine destruction and disposal is not constitutional error."

  State v. Helmer - SD

Decided: 5/17/1979

On appeal, appellant asserts pretrial error in the failure of the trial court to suppress the breathalyzer evidence and dismiss the information for two reasons: (1) That the test ampoule from the breathalyzer was not preserved for his use as exculpatory evidence; and (2) that the foundation was insufficient to admit any breathalyzer test results because the reliability of said machine has not been sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the field of blood alcohol analysis. ... In State v. Baker, 56 Wash.2d 846, 355 P.2d 806 (1960), an often-cited Washington case, that state's Supreme Court held that before the results of a breathalyzer test for determining alcohol in the blood are admissible in evidence, the state must produce prima facie evidence that:

Cited 5 times

  City of Bellevue v. Ohlson - WA

Decided: 2/4/1991

After the Supreme Court determined that expert testimony on the retesting procedure was inadmissible under the Frye[5] standard, it held the ampuls were not material evidence and the State had no duty to preserve the evidence. ... It is apparent from the decision of the District Court that it dismissed the case based on its interpretation of State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wn.2d 436, 610 P.2d 893, 18 A.L.R.4th 690, vacated and remanded, 449 U.S. 977, aff'd on remand, 94 Wn.2d 858, 620 P.2d 999 (1980),[1] that actual access to counsel is required.

Cited 1 times