 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Buchholz8/11/1999
he analysis is whether all reasonable medical precautions were taken and no unusual or untested procedures were employed. Here no unusual or untested procedures were required. 1999 SD 9 at § 38-40, 588 NW2d at 893 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[ ] The sample was not demanded of Buchholz at random but probable cause existed to believe her body fluid would test positive for drug consumption. Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757, 770, 86 SCt 1826, 1835, 16 LEd2d 908, 919-20 (1966). She was the sole occupant of the car in which the methamphetamine was found. The urine sample and its results are highly accurate and essential to the community's interest in fairly and accurately determining Buchholz's guilt or innocence. This urine sample provided evidence of her knowledge that the drug was in her car and enabled the State to establish the required element of knowledge. Hanson, 1999 SD 9 at § 40, 588 NW2d at 894 (citing Strong, 493 NW2d at 837-38 (citing Winston, 470 US at 762, 105 SCt at 1617-18, 84 LEd2d at 670). See also State v. Dickson, 329 NW2d 630, 632 (SD 1983)).
[ ] 2. Whether specific discovery of a search warrant affidavit should have been granted.
[ ] Buchholz argues that the safety check was connected to a search of a Huron hotel conducted earlier that weekend, pursuant to a warrant. Therefore, Buchholz argues that under SDCL 23A-35-4.1, which permits a defendant to discover the contents of an affidavit supporting a search warrant, she should have been able to discover the affidavit supporting the earlier search of the hotel. The trial court determined the evidence sought was not relevant. We agree.
[ ] The proper standard for ruling on a discovery motion is whether the information sought is "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... ." SDCL 15-6-26(b)(1). "This phraseology implies a broad construction of "relevancy" at the discovery stage because one of the purposes of discovery is to examine information that may lead to admissible evidence at trial." Kaarup v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 436 NW2d 17, 20 (SD 1989) (citing 8 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2008 (1970)). " he extent of discovery permitted by either side rests in the discretion of the court." State v. Catch the Bear, 352 NW2d 640, 644 (SD 1984) (citing State v. Means, 268 NW2d 802, 815 (SD 1978); State v. Wade, 83 SD 337, 343, 159 NW2d 396, 400 (1968); see also State v. Erickson 525 NW2d 703, 711 (SD 1994).
[ ] Buchholz failed to make any showing that the traffic safety check was related to the earlier searches at the hotel . At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel asked the officer, "Were you thinking of the rumors that had gone around about the foosball tournament when this safety check was set up?" The officer responded, "No." Buchholz was not searched, arrested, or charged on the basis of the search warrant at the hotel. Therefore, as to this issue, the trial court did not err.
[ ] 3. Whether a fingerprint expert should have been appointed.
[ ] "A trial court's decision regarding appointment of an expert will not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Red Star, 467 NW2d 769, 771 (SD 1991) (citing State v. Jaques, 428 NW2d 260, 264 (SD 1988)). "The trial Judge has broad discretion in determining the necessity of the appointment of an expert in a given factual environment." Red Star, 467 NW2d at 771 (citing State v. Hallman, 391 NW2d 191, 194 (SD 1986)).
[ ] Four elements must be satisfied before appointment of an expert must be made:
" he request must be (1) in good faith; (2) reasonable in all respects; (3) timely and specifically set
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|