 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Grand Forks v. Barnum5/19/2005
AFFIRMED.
[ ] Steven Lee Barnum appealed from a criminal judgment entered on a jury verdict of guilty to a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We affirm.
I.
[ ] Barnum was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor in Grand Forks on March 28, 2004. An Intoxilyzer test indicated that Barnum had a blood alcohol level of .16 percent. Barnum was found guilty after a jury trial, and has raised the following issue on appeal: The trial court erred in admitting the Intoxilyzer test results because the foundational requirements showing that the test was administered in accordance with the State Toxicologist's approved method were not met.
Barnum contends the City did not carry its burden to show fair administration of the Intoxilyzer test because "a copy of the operational checklist, was not admitted, and, therefore, the foundational requirements were not met." The City of Grand Forks contends " he current machine has an external printer (EP) and does not require a separate form because the external printer prints everything, including the checklist."
II.
[ ] Section 39-20-07, N.D.C.C., provides for the admissibility of chemical test results: 5. The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to administer the test issued by the state toxicologist. . . . 6. . . . Upon approval of the methods or devices, or both, required to perform the tests and the persons qualified to administer them, the state toxicologist shall prepare and file written record of the approval with the director and the recorder in each county, unless the board of county commissioners designates a different official, and shall include in the record: a. An annual register of the specific testing devices currently approved, including serial number, location, and the date and results of last inspection. b. An annual register of currently qualified and certified operators of the devices, stating the date of certification and its expiration. c. The operational checklist and forms prescribing the methods currently approved by the state toxicologist in using the devices during the administration of the tests. The material filed under this section may be supplemented when the state toxicologist determines it to be necessary, and any supplemental material has the same force and effect as the material that it supplements.
[ ] In a case involving an Intoxilyzer 5000 KB-EP machine like the one used in this case, the North Dakota Supreme Court has recently addressed the admissibility of chemical test results of a driver's blood alcohol content under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07: Admissibility of chemical test results of a driver's blood alcohol content is governed by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07. Under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5), the results of a chemical analysis must be received in evidence if the sample was properly obtained, the test was fairly administered, and the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the State Toxicologist. City of Grand Forks v. Scialdone, 2005 ND 24, 6, 691 N.W.2d 198; City of Bismarck v. Bosch, 2005 ND 12, 6, 691 N.W.2d 260. Absent testimony by the State Toxicologist, the foundation necessary to show fair administration of the test and admissibility of the test results may be established by proof that the test was administered in accordance with the approved method filed with the cler
Page 1 2 3 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|