In Kansas v. Finch, --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 43926 (Kan.) the defendant was arrested for DUI and took a breath test, the result of which was 0.08. The trial proceeded solely on the charge of driving with a BrAC of 0.08 or greater. At trial, the defense crossed the breath operator about the margin of error (for those with interest, the below opinion contains a great portion of the cross, which revealed a recalcitrant cop who was unwilling to admit that the machine was less than 100% perfect). When the state rested, the defense moved for judgment of acquittal as a matter of law (this was a jury trial). The trial court, commenting that he found the breath cop less than credible on the margin of error, and also noting that he was aware of testimony from other trials where the margin of error was admitted to be =/- 0.007, granted the motion.
On appeal, the higher court found the trial courts ruling improper. Under the standards applicable, once the state puts in a result of 0.08 or more, then they have met their initial burden of proof (prima facie in a light most favorable to the State). In reversing though, the appeals court rejected the state's attempt to bar introduction of any evidence of a margin of error or other errors in the measurement of the breath (commenting that the state is trying to "overegg the pudding"). In fact, the court held that the margin of error, if proven, should be considered by the trier of fact in arriving at a verdict at the close of all evidence. The court suggested that the jury could accept or reject the margin of error evidence.
Editors notes: there is controversy over whether a margin of error can defeat a per se count as a matter of law. Further, the appeals court advised that it is improper for a trial court to take notice of testimony dehors the record.
Counsel should always be prepared to prove up a margin of error independent of the breath operators testimony, such as manufacturer's records, government studies, or experts.
Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!
America's Top DUI DWI Lawyers™ and Attorneys at 1-800-DIAL-DUI or www.1800dialdui.com have successfully defended thousands of DUI DWI and Drunk Driving Arrests in Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, California, Nevada, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia, Arizona and Maryland.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(289)
-
▼
January
(19)
- DUI Appeal of the Day - Attorney Advice Renders Il...
- DUI Appeal of the Day - Sentencing, Culpability, L...
- Hearsay Not Admissible to Establish PC at IC Hearings
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Defense Barred from ...
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Prior Refusals Do No...
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Coming down from dru...
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) When the Expert Can't ...
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Suicidal Stop Reversed
- DWI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Blood Search Warrant...
- DWI Appeal of the Day (DAD) -Precluding Defendant'...
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - When is Blood being ...
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - The “blackout” defense
- DUI Appeal of the Day (DAD) - Judgment of acquitta...
- DUI Appeal of the Day - Hearing Officer's refusal ...
- DUI Appeal of the Day - Drunk Driving Laws and Ame...
- DUI Appeal of the Day - Collateral Estoppel OK for...
- Fired Madison County prosecutor worked the day of ...
- DUI Appeal of the Day - Improper Lane Usage
- DUI Appeal of the Day - Serial Conniver Loses Appeal
-
▼
January
(19)
No comments:
Post a Comment