 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heflin v. State3/1/2002
We agree with the State that there are probably many good reasons for not recording malfunctions or problems with Intoxilyzer 5000 machines in the logbooks, including the confusion that may result from unidentified entries relating to unidentified problems. However, the issue before this Court is not whether there is a good reason for the practice -- the issue is whether the practice affects the admissibility of the results of Intoxilyzer 5000 tests. We hold that it does not.
The practice of not recording malfunctions or problems in the logbooks, but of maintaining separate records for malfunctions, does not render the results from Intoxilyzer 5000 tests inadmissible. Rather, as Heflin essentially concedes in his argument, that practice affects only the weight and credibility of the test results. See, e.g., Faust v. City of Gadsden, 639 So. 2d 536, 538 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (holding that the fact the appellant's breath sample was deficient did not affect the admissibility of the test results but affected only the weight to be accorded those results); and Harris v. State, 601 So. 2d 1099 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (same), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Mayo, 652 So. 2d 201 (Ala. 1994). The history of malfunctions of any given Intoxilyzer 5000 machine is recorded on the inspection sheets; those sheets are kept with the machine and are available through discovery; and defendants are free to present evidence of malfunctions on a machine to the jury and to argue to the jury that it should give little or no weight to the Intoxilyzer 5000 results because of the history of malfunctions on a particular machine. However, as long as the State lays the proper predicate either under § 32-5A-194(a)(1) or under Ex parte Mayo, 652 So. 2d 201 (Ala. 1994), the results of Intoxilyzer 5000 tests are admissible.
In this case, Heflin's counsel cross-examined Trooper Dettmar extensively about the practice of not recording in the logbook any malfunctions or problems with the Intoxilyzer 5000 devices; about Trooper Dettmar's specific instructions to local police not to record any malfunctions or problems with the device that was used on Heflin in the logbook, but to notify him instead; and about Trooper Dettmar's practice of not maintaining records of the telephone calls he received regarding malfunctions. As noted above, the inspection sheets Trooper Dettmar filled out when he inspected the device used on Heflin were admitted into evidence. These sheets reflect that the device passed inspection both before and after Heflin's blood-alcohol test. In addition, Trooper Dettmar testified that he could not remember ever being notified of a malfunction on the device used on Heflin, but that it was possible that he had been. The weight to be accorded Heflin's tests results was a question for the jury, not for the court. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the Intoxilyzer 5000 test results.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
McMillan, P.J., and Cobb, Baschab, and Wise, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|