 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bernier4/12/2000
ed unnecessary by Disch. See id.
. Furthermore, "tests by recognized methods need not be proved for reliability in every case of violation" because they "carry a prima facie presumption of accuracy." Id. at 474 (citations omitted). Instead, whether the test was properly conducted or the equipment was in good working order is a matter of defense that goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. See id. at 476. Assuming arguendo that the taking of Bernier's blood sample was a test, the procedure nonetheless was done by recognized methods and was entitled to this presumption of accuracy. It thus fell to Bernier to attack the procedure by his own means by calling the technician himself or producing other impeaching evidence. He did neither.
. Finally, Bernier complains that the trial court erred in admitting the Blood/Urine Analysis result because the hospital technician executed the form with his or her identification number rather than by name and signature. As was explained at trial, this was done pursuant to an agreement between the hospital and the district attorney because people arrested for drunk driving have sometimes harassed technicians in the past. The identification numbers allow for the privacy of the hospital employees, while still allowing a means to determine who performed the blood draw.
. We reject Bernier's argument for two reasons. First, we have already held that the technician was not a necessary witness. Second, Bernier never sought to learn the actual identity of the technician by discovery or any other means. Absent a showing that this evidence was so material that its absence resulted in an unfair trial, we reject Bernier's argument. See Tucker v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 630, 642, 267 N.W.2d 630 (1978).
CONCLUSION
. The evidence demonstrated that the technician who withdrew Bernier's blood sample was statutorily qualified. The evidence also reveals no break in the chain of custody of the blood sample. In addition, the State's failure to produce the technician as a witness did not violate Bernier's confrontation or due process rights. Finally, Bernier will not be heard to complain about the identification procedure used by the hospital since the technician was not a necessary witness and Bernier never sought the technician's personal identity through available procedures. In summary, the trial court did not err in the exercise of its discretion by admitting the results of the blood test into evidence.
By the Court. -- Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|