 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Keith10/20/2005
ndation to admit the breath test result through the testimony of Officer Guyman and Trooper Moore. Indeed, Keith does not directly challenge the trial court's determination that a proper foundation was established. Keith instead argues, from a policy standpoint, that allowing Officer Guyman, who was uncertified at the time of the breath test, to testify as an expert eliminates the need for officers to comply with the certification standards under rule 714-500-6 of the administrative code.
We disagree. The carrot-and-stick approach built into section 41-6-44.3, i.e., obtaining the presumption of admissibility versus having to establish a foundation for the introduction of the evidence through expert testimony, see Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44.3(3); Garcia, 965 P.2d at 513, provides sufficient incentive for the State to assure that its officers comply with the statutory certification standards.
Affirmed.
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
WE CONCUR:
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
Page 1 2 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|