 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Crotty6/13/2005
. Rather, it is ultimately to ensure the machine was functioning properly on the date in question by providing a means of looking at the history of the machine. See State v. Morton (May 10, 1999), Warren App. No. CA98-10-131.
{ } Here, the testimony regarding BAC Datamaster records went directly to the ultimate issue of the machine's reliability on the date in question. If appellant wished to raise a more specific challenge for the basis of this testimony, such as how retained records from the past three years supported it, he could have elected to do so on cross-examination. This in turn would have required a more specific response from the state. See State v. Murray, Greene App. No. 2002-CA-10, 2002-Ohio-4809, at . However, in this instance, appellant asked no questions on this issue during his very brief cross-examination of the senior operator.
{ } After consideration, we find the state met its slight burden to make a general response regarding the record retention requirement. Therefore, we find no prejudicial error by the trial court with regard to its ruling on the breath test.
{ } For the aforementioned reasons, we find the trial court did not err when it denied appellant's motion to suppress. We overrule appellant's assignment of error.
{ } Judgment affirmed.
POWELL, P.J., and WALSH, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|