AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) after a breath alcohol test indicated a level of 0.08 or above. The key issue arose from the admission of the breath test results, which the Defendant challenged based on alleged non-compliance with specific record-keeping regulations by the officer who administered the test (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the breath alcohol test results should not have been admitted due to the State's failure to comply with certain record-keeping regulations, which were deemed necessary for ensuring the accuracy of the test results. Highlighted that the officer admitted to not transferring calibration check results into the log book as required, thus invalidating the test results and his testimony (paras 3-5).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in admitting the Defendant's breath alcohol test results despite alleged non-compliance with specific record-keeping regulations by the administering officer.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Stephen G. French concurring, held that the Defendant's arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the breath test results were not preserved for appellate review. The Court explained that to preserve an issue for review, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon. The Court found that the Defendant's objection at trial and arguments in a motion for a new trial did not specifically address the arguments raised on appeal regarding the accuracy-ensuring nature of the record-keeping regulations and the burden shifting to the State to prove the regulations were not accuracy ensuring. As such, these issues were not preserved for review, and the Court declined to consider them (paras 2-6).