 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ciulla v. Miller5/7/1991
ore a notary and indicated that Peterson was qualified by the Arizona Department of Health Services as a Quality Assurance Specialist for Intoxilyzer Inspection. It also showed that the intoxilyzer used for appellant's test was functioning within the legal, acceptable accuracy limits as defined by ACRR R9-14-405.A.3, as shown by test results on the instrument shortly before and shortly after appellant's test. The document stated that no problems were reported concerning the instrument between the dates of its testing by Peterson.
We find this document satisfies the reliability requirements under A.R.S. § 28-692(G) as a summary of work performed by the Department of Health Services.
Appellant argues that the document is hearsay evidence and thus denies him of the right of confrontation. We find the document to be admissible hearsay because it is reliable under A.R.S. § 41-1010(A)(1), quoted above. See Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Board, 152 Ariz. 331, 732 P.2d 222 (App.1986); Kuznicki v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 152 Ariz. 381, 732 P.2d 1119 (App.1986). Appellant could have challenged it by a subpoena of the original records of the Department of Health Services, and by calling Peterson as a witness at the hearing. Wieseler v. Prins, 167 Ariz. 223, 805 P.2d 1044 (App.1990).
Finally, appellant argues that the document is invalid because the authenticating notary failed to date the notarization. We find that the hearing officer acted within his discretion in admitting the document despite this discrepancy.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|