 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jordan v. State9/15/2004
yzer. He asserts that Officer Booker's failure to advise him in writing that he would be reimbursed for the cost of an additional test if he was found not guilty precluded the results of his breath test from being admitted.
The State argues, as it did in Daniels v. State,__ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Dec. 17, 2003), that the breathalyzer result was admissible because there was substantial compliance with the applicable statute. We rejected this argument in Daniels, supra. In Daniels, we stated:
Substantial compliance with the statutory provision about the advice that must be given is all that is required. Lampkin v. State, 81 Ark. App. 434, 105 S.W.3d 363 (2003). In the instant case, the officer complied with part of the statute by advising [appellant] that he could have an additional test at his own expense, and by offering to assist him in obtaining one. However, it is undisputed that there was no compliance at all with requirement that appellant be advised that he would be reimbursed for the cost of the test if found not guilty. Thus, we reject the substantial-compliance argument now being raised by the State.
If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion to resort to rules of statutory interpretation. Harness v. State, 352 Ark. 335, 101 S.W.3d 235 (2003). The supreme court construes criminal statutes strictly, resolving any doubts in favor of the defendant. Id. The provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-204(d) (Supp. 2003) are clear, and because there was a failure of compliance, we are constrained to reverse the trial court's admission of the breathalyzer test result.
Daniels v. State, __ Ark. App. ___, ___ , ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Dec. 17, 2003).
Here, we again reject the State's substantial-compliance argument and reverse the trial court's admission of the breathalyzer test result, as it is undisputed that there was no compliance at all with the statutory requirement that appellant be advised that he would be reimbursed for the cost of the test if found not guilty.
Reversed and remanded.
Pittman and Gladwin, JJ., agree.
|