 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Delaney12/20/1999
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, The Honorable Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Judge presiding.
Submitted on Briefs: September 2, 1999
1 Robert Delaney (Delaney) appeals from the judgment entered by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, on a jury verdict finding him guilty of the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). We affirm.
2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Delaney's motion in limine and admitting evidence of the results of his breath test.
BACKGROUND
3 Delaney was arrested on February 28, 1997, and subsequently charged with third offense DUI. At the time of his arrest, Delaney's breath was tested on an Intoxilizer 5000 machine (Intoxilizer) which measured his breath alcohol concentration at .168. A jury in Lewis and Clark County Justice Court found Delaney guilty and he appealed the conviction to the District Court. The District Court scheduled a jury trial for March 4, 1998.
4 On the morning of trial, Delaney moved in limine to exclude the results of the Intoxilizer test, asserting that the State of Montana (State) could not provide adequate foundation regarding the Intoxilizer's annual certification to allow admission of the test results into evidence. The District Court denied the motion and the test results were admitted into evidence at trial.
5 The jury found Delaney guilty of DUI and the District Court sentenced him and entered judgment. Delaney appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
6 A district court's decision regarding a motion in limine is an evidentiary ruling. See State v. Fenton, 1998 MT 99, 11, 288 Mont. 415, 11, 958 P.2d 68, 11. "The determination of whether evidence is relevant and admissible is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned absent a showing of abuse of discretion." Fenton, 11 (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
7 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Delaney's motion in limine and admitting evidence of the results of his breath test?
8 The State closely regulates the breath analysis instruments used in determining the breath alcohol concentration of a person charged with an alcohol-related driving offense through the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM). State v. Woods (1995), 272 Mont. 220, 222, 900 P.2d 320, 322. A person charged with such an offense is entitled to the procedural safeguards contained in the ARM. Woods, 272 Mont. at 222, 900 P.2d at 322. Consequently, in order for the results of a defendant's breath test to be admitted into evidence in a criminal trial, the State must lay a proper foundation by establishing that the instrument used for the test complied with the ARM requirements. Woods, 272 Mont. at 223, 900 P.2d at 322.
9 Section 23.4.214, ARM, the provision at issue in this case, requires that all breath analysis equipment be sent to the State division of forensic science annually for a laboratory certification. Several times during pretrial discovery, Delaney requested the State to provide documentation that the Intoxilizer used to test his breath had been properly certified as required by § 23.4.214, ARM, and the State produced a copy of the laboratory certification form in response to each request.
10 On the morning of trial, Delaney moved in limine to exclude the results of his breath test, asserting that the annual certification form was inadmissible hearsay which could not be used to lay the necessary foundation for admission of his breath test results. During
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|