 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Alford1/7/2004
Brian Neal Alford appeals from the district court's intermediate appellate decision affirming his judgment of conviction and sentence for driving under the influence. We affirm.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In February 2002, an officer driving behind Alford observed Alford's vehicle repeatedly cross the centerline into the oncoming lane of traffic. The officer stopped Alford, walked to the vehicle, and began asking questions. The officer noticed the smell of alcohol coming from Alford. After administering field sobriety tests, the officer concluded that Alford was under the influence of alcohol. A breath test was administered using an Alco-Sensor III device, which showed that Alford had an alcohol concentration of .156, nearly twice the .08 legal limit. As a result, Alford was charged with driving under the influence (DUI).
Prior to trial, Alford moved to exclude the results of the breath test, claiming that the state was unable to provide a proper foundation for the admissibility of the Alco-Sensor III test results. Alford also claimed that the reliability of the test results was not demonstrated as required by I.R.E. 702. Alford's motion was denied. At trial, the arresting officer testified regarding the traffic stop, the field sobriety tests, and the results of the breath test. Alford was found guilty by a jury. A judgment of conviction was entered, and Alford was sentenced for DUI. Alford appealed to the district court, claiming that the magistrate erred when it denied his motion to exclude the results of his breath test. Alford also argued that he was denied due process of law during trial because the arresting officer falsely testified that the operating procedures for administering the breath test are codified in the Idaho Administrative Code (IDAPA). On intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate. Alford raises the same issues on this appeal.
II.
ANALYSIS
On review of a decision of the district court, rendered in its appellate capacity, we examine the record of the trial court independently of, but with due regard for, the district court's intermediate appellate decision. State v. Bowman, 124 Idaho 936, 939, 866 P.2d 193, 196 (Ct.App.1993).
**141 *597 A. Breath Test Results
Prior to and at trial in this case, Alford moved to exclude the results of the breath tests administered by the arresting officer. Alford claimed that the state was unable to lay a proper foundation for admitting the results. The magistrate ruled that the use of breath test results from the Alco-Sensor III had been approved in accordance with statutory law and were, therefore, admissible.
The decision whether to admit evidence at trial is generally within the province of the trial court. A trial court's determination that evidence is supported by a proper foundation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gilpin, 132 Idaho 643, 646, 977 P.2d 905, 908 (Ct.App.1999). Therefore, a trial court's determination as to the admission of evidence at trial will only be reversed where there has been an abuse of that discretion. State v. Zimmerman, 121 Idaho 971, 973-74, 829 P.2d 861, 863-64 (1992). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (3) whether the lower court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600, 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989). The question in this case is whether the magistrate acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the admis
Page 1 2 3 Idaho DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|