 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MCDANIEL v. STATE9/26/1997
es's qualifications to administer the I-5000 test, and it does not establish that the I-5000 used to test the appellant passed inspection before and after the test. Accordingly, because the state did not lay a sufficient traditional evidentiary predicate, the trial court erred in allowing Trooper Vines to testify concerning the results of the I-5000 test.
Moreover, just as in Senn v. State, admission of the I-5000 test results was not harmless error. Although the stipulation of fact noted that Trooper Vines gave other testimony concerning the appellant's intoxicated condition at the time of his arrest, including the fact that he smelled the odor of alcohol on the appellant's breath, the evidence of intoxication in this case was conflicting. That portion of the stipulation of fact summarizing the appellant's testimony provided that he was suffering from a chronic, severe stomach disorder, and that he was taking numerous prescribed medications for the treatment of this condition. He maintained that his condition was not caused by intoxication, but rather, was the result of his having become severely ill while traveling to Pell City. "In light of the conflicting testimony and the great weight often given to results from sophisticated, technical machinery," Ex parte Curtis, 502 So.2d 833, 835 (Ala. 1986), we are unable to say that admission of Trooper Vines's testimony concerning the I-5000 test results was harmless error.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All the Judges concur.
|