 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salt Lake City v. Favazzo5/15/2003
cer deviated from that standard in performing the test on Defendant; the number of times the officer should pass the pen in front of the subject's eyes, and whether the officer made the appropriate number of passes in performing the test on Defendant; and whether factors unrelated to alcohol or drug impairment could cause responses indicative of alcohol or drug impairment.
Defendant did not state below, nor has he explained on appeal, what evidence he believes was erroneously excluded by the trial court's limitation of his cross-examination. "We have stated that we will not set aside a verdict because of the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless a proffer of evidence appears of record. . . . We therefore decline to speculate upon whether other evidence might have come forward in an unlimited cross." State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 87, n.10, 57 P.3d 220 (quotations and citations omitted). We conclude, therefore, that Defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated.
Affirmed.
Russell W. Bench, Judge
WE CONCUR:
James Z. Davis, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
Page 1 2 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|