 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Christian3/13/1995
produced were produced by the instrument.
See State v. Wilson-Bey , 572 A.2d 372, 377 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990) (right to confrontation not violated where test results of bodily fluids was the product of a standard testing procedure); see generally Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Confrontation and Hearsay: Exemptions from the Constitutional Unavailability Requirement , 70 Minn. L. Rev. 665, 701 (1986) ("The higher the reliability of the testing procedure, the lower the necessity for confrontation. The greater the objectivity of the test, the less its susceptibility to testing by cross-examination.") (footnote omitted). Second, Dr. Robb testified as to the validity and accuracy of the Gallegos report. He clearly had knowledge about the testing procedure and the manner in which the Gallegos report was compiled and was available for cross-examination into these matters. Cf. (computer printouts not admissible where witnesses testifying were not knowledgeable about how printouts were prepared or preserved or how information was fed into computer). Further, given the number of tests a chemist performs, it is doubtful that Gallegos would have had any independent or specific recollection of the Defendant's blood-alcohol report. Under this circumstance, it is likely that Gallegos would have based his testimony on laboratory notes, which Dr. Robb was well qualified to interpret and which were available to the Defendant for examination. Therefore, the "utility of cross-examination" was "minimal" in regard to a personal appearance by Gallegos. See (no confrontation clause violation when court found report contained "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.") (quoting Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980)); ), cert. denied , 481 U.S. 1020 (1987); State v. Moosman , 794 P.2d 474, 480 (Utah 1990); State v. Mann , 400 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). Accordingly, we hold that, under the circumstances of this case, there is no confrontation clause violation.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we affirm Defendant's conviction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|