 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Demille10/11/1988
ory director or laboratory supervisor shall insure that calibration is done[.]
Defendant argues that " ince it is the responsibility of the laboratory director or laboratory supervisor, not a medical technologist, to insure that calibration is done pursuant to 11-111-5(j), and no testimony was elicited from either the laboratory director or supervisor, there was an insufficient foundation for introduction of the blood test results." In our view, this argument extends the strict compliance requirement to a ridiculous extreme.
We agree with Defendant that § 5(j)(1) places the responsibility of insuring calibration of instruments on the laboratory director or supervisor. However, § 5(j)(1) does not require the director or supervisor to calibrate the instruments personally.
In the case at hand, medical technologist Chang testified that she properly calibrated the spectrophotometer as required by § 5(j). Chang's testimony on calibration of the instrument was the best evidence that the calibration was done, rather than the testimony of the laboratory director or supervisor, who did not do the work. It could be reasonably inferred from Chang's testimony that the director or supervisor insured the calibration of the spectrophotometer by virtue of the Pawaa Annex laboratory's general operating procedure which Chang, the medical technologist, followed. Testimony of the director or supervisor regarding the calibration of the spectrophotometer was superfluous and unnecessary.
III.
Accordingly, we hold that based on the record there was strict compliance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules and a sufficient foundation was laid for the admission of the blood test results into evidence.
We therefore affirm the DUI conviction.
Disposition
We therefore affirm the DUI conviction.
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|