 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ruiz8/18/1995
idering Exhibit 1. If I do consider Exhibit 1, then what was a close case before now becomes a now rather clear case even further beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while intoxicated.
27. The allegation that the State may not rely on the breath test because the test was taken fifty minutes after the arrest is answered by ), cert. denied , 117 N.M. 121, 869 P.2d 820 (1994).
C. The District Court Did Not Err in Questioning Mr. Walton
28. In response to questions by the court, Mr. Walton testified that he was one of the authorized custodians of the calibration logbook; that Mr. Atencio was his co-worker; and that he had trained Mr. Atencio to use the Intoxilyzer 5000, to make the standard control solutions, to use the gas chromatograph, and to test blood-alcohol samples. Mr. Walton further responded that he was not a law enforcement officer; did not carry a badge; had not completed the law enforcement academy; did not supervise or direct any law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties; was a City employee in the APD Criminalistics Section; and that the Laboratory director was a civilian.
29. Defendant apparently claims that some or all of the questions by the district Judge were inappropriate. We disagree. See ), cert. denied , 104 N.M. 632, 725 P.2d 832 (1986); .
VI. CONCLUSION
30. Defendant's conviction is affirmed.
31. IT IS SO ORDERED.
|