 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] State v. Snell9/14/2004
l cell on cell performance, and methods of measurement. Two reports, one by the Mesa, Arizona, Police Department Crime Lab and the other by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Forensic Section, produced after extensive field and laboratory testing, concluded that the Alco-Sensor III is an accurate and reliable blood/alcohol measurement device.
Rule 702, M.R.Evid., allows a qualified expert witness to testify as to scientific evidence if the testimony will help the trier of fact understand the evidence. In Barmeyer , we determined:
bsolute certainty of result or unanimity of scientific opinion is not required for admissibility. . . . Unless an exaggerated popular opinion of the accuracy of a particular technique makes its use prejudicial or likely to mislead the jury, it is better to admit relevant scientific evidence in the same manner as other expert testimony and allow its weight to be attacked by cross-examination and refutation.
Barmeyer , 202 Mont. at 193-94, 657 P.2d at 598, overruled on other grounds by , Martel v. Montana Power Co. (1988), 231 Mont. 96, 752 P.2d 140, (quoting United States v. Baller, (4th Cir. 1975), 519 F.2d 463).
In 1998, we affirmed this standard concerning the general admissibility of scientific evidence stating: a trial court presented with scientific evidence . . . is encouraged to liberally construe the rules of evidence so as to admit all relevant expert testimony pursuant to Barmeyer . . . . f a court is presented with an issue concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence in general, the court must employ a conventional analysis under Rule 702, M.R.Evid., while again adhering to the principle set forth in Barmeyer .
Hulse v. State , 1998 MT 108, 63, 289 Mont. 1, 63, 961 P.2d 75, 63.
After conceding in 36 that the trial court heard expert testimony and that an "extensive discussion of past technology" was held at the evidentiary hearing, the majority in this case proceeds to say, " owever, the court held the evidentiary hearing in 2001, prior to our 2003 Weldele decision." The majority's analysis in this case is practically a verbatim quotation from Weldele , contains minimal additional analysis, and contains no guidance for the State on what further evidence is necessary to convince the Court. The ruling here makes the assurance in Weldele that the evidence could be admitted empty indeed.
The defendant's own expert acknowledged that he is unaware of any additional peer review article in any scientific journal that would tend to either support or debunk the evidence submitted in this case. The quantity and quality of the scientific evidence submitted in this case provided evidence of the reliability of the Alco-Sensor III. The District Court correctly found that the PAST evidence was admissible, and that all challenges based on variables such as temperature, humidity, operator skill, air quality, etc., go to the weight of the evidence. There was no abuse of discretion in admitting the results of the PAST.
JOHN WARNER
We join in the foregoing concurrence and dissent of Justice Warner.
KARLA M. GRAY
JIM RICE
|