 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Otto11/30/2004
2, and State v. McDonald (1985), 215 Mont. 340, 697 P.2d 1328. In McDonald , the results of a blood test were found to be inadmissible by this Court because the person who drew the defendant's blood at the hospital was not properly identified on the hospital record as required by ARM 23.3.931. McDonald , 215 Mont. at 345-46, 697 P.2d at 1331. In Woods , we reiterated that a defendant charged with a DUI is entitled to the procedural safeguards contained within the administrative rules. Woods , 285 Mont. at 127, 947 P.2d at 63. (In a special concurrence in Woods , it was explained that while the McDonald rule may be correct, the McDonald decision itself is of questionable authority due to a change in the applicable statutes which occurred during the course of that proceeding. Woods , 285 Mont. at 130, 947 P.2d at 65-66 (Nelson, J., specially concurring.).)
Regardless, we need not reach McDonald or Woods to render our decision here. Significantly, and as the State notes, Otto has not argued that he was prejudiced by the admission of the breathalyzer results. Moreover, the court had ample other evidence before it, including the HGN results, the results from the field sobriety test performed at the police station, Otto's difficulty in retrieving and presenting the relevant paperwork, and the smell of alcohol on his person, much of which was preserved on the patrol car videotape and all of which was the subject of testimony by Officer Mantooth.
On the record before us, the prejudicial effect of the breathalyzer results has not been either argued or established. Thus, we conclude the District Court's denial of Otto's Motion to Suppress the breathalyzer results is not cause for reversal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|