 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Delaney12/20/1999
. Here, however, the annual certification form was not substantive evidence used to prove the charged DUI offense. It merely provided the foundation required for the admission of other substantive evidence. The information in the annual certification form was not accusatory in the same manner as the chemical analysis in Clark and, as a result, that case is distinguishable.
19 Furthermore, contrary to Delaney's contention, the State did not offer the Intoxilizer's annual certification form for admission into evidence as a state crime laboratory report. Indeed, the State has maintained throughout these proceedings that it was not required to have the certification form admitted into evidence to establish the necessary foundation for the Intoxilizer results. Therefore, because the certification form was not offered or admitted under the state crime laboratory hearsay exception, Clark is inapplicable here. We conclude that Delaney has not established a violation of his right to confrontation.
20 We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Delaney's motion in limine and admitting evidence of the results of his breath test.
21 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
/S/ J. A. TURNAGE /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JIM REGNIER /S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
|