A drunk driving defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by the admission of Intoxilyzer 5000 certificates without the testimony of the technician who prepared them, the Idaho Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a conviction. The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence based on the results of a breath test administered by a police officer using an Intoxilyzer 5000. The defendant argued that the admission of the certificates substantiating the accuracy of the device without the testimony of the technician who prepared them violated his Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36). (See "Admission of wife's hearsay statements against husband violated Constitution," Lawyers USA, March 15, 2004.)
Defendant did not object to the trial courts consideration of victim impact statement at sentencing hearing; therefore, defendant waived any claim that consideration of the statement violated his Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177. Furthermore, all the allegedly prejudicial information of which defendant complains was contained not in the victim impact statement, but in the details of offense section of the pre-sentence investigation report. Affirmed.
Concluding the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution were not violated, the State of New York, Niagara County Court denied the defendant's Section 440.10 motion. In People of the State of New York v. Harry Ayrhart, Judge Peter L. Broderick determined the defendant's motion must be denied because the testimony the prosecutor introduced during the trial was not hearsay. The judge also found the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 124 SCt 1354 (2004) did not apply to the defendant's case.
Various statements made by victim of fatal icepick stabbing were not made for a testimonial purpose, and were therefore not barred by Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, and satisfied exclusions from hearsay as either statements made to medical personnel for purposes of diagnosis and treatment or excited utterances. These statements were properly allowed by the trial court. Other statements were made for a testimonial purpose, and were therefore barred by Crawford v. Washington, but these were cumulative with statements that had already been made by victim. Therefore, trial courts error in admitting these statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial counsel was therefore not ineffective in having failed to object to ad...
... if: (1) the declarant is unavailable; (36) and (2) the defendant has had a prior opportunity...56 (1980). . (4.) Id. at 66. . (5.) 541 U.S. 36 (2004). . (6.) See id. at 42-56 (discussin...
Criminal Law & Procedure: Because jury verdicts did not set out the degrees of the offense, or aggravating factors, they did not comply with 2945.75 and appellant could only be convicted of the lowest degrees of the offenses; insufficient evidence was adduced to show a disassembled firearm could be made readily operable pursuant to R.C. 2923.11(B)(1) and, thus, appellants conviction for having a firearm under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13, is reversed; admission of tape recording of controlled drug purchase, as well as comments from confidential informant related by police, were not testimonial evidence and, thus, not barred by the United States Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L...
...Washington. (14) The case involved the constitutionality of a.... In 2004, I argued Crawford a. Washington, (23) challenging the Court's reliab...(36) Thus, just as in Blakely, the Court in Melendez-D.... (21.) Id. at 65. . (22.) Id. . (23.) 541 U.S. 36 (2004). . (24.) Brief for Petitioner at 27...
Documents attesting to the proper functioning of a BAC DataMaster and the qualifications of its operators are not testimonial under Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, and may be introduced without live testimony.
... relies on three Supreme Court decisions: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Melendez-Diaz v...
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004), courts have been required to determine whether an out-of-court statement or document is testimonial or non- testimonial when faced with the issue of a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. In a recent decision by Rochester City Court, People of the State of New York v. Paul Fisher, Judge Thomas Rainbow Morse ruled the results of certain DWI foundational documents (i.e., certificate of calibration for the breath test instrument, simulator solution analysis and weekly instrument test records) were not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
christine dykes | Easterday Ranches Inc | Aspect Telecommunications Corporation | Abu Ghneim | Terex Corporation | Continuación de la explotación de la empresa | Assieu | sueldo base | Desestimación judicial | Lenocinio
