State v. Anonymous

Decision Date28 April 1972
Citation32 Conn.Supp. 611,349 A.2d 146
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS (1975-5). * . COLLINS, Judge. The defendant was arrested on a uniform summons and complaint on
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Connecticut. Connecticut Court of Common Pleas, Appellate Division

COLLINS, Judge.

The defendant was arrested on a uniform summons and complaint on April 28, 1972, which charged him with violation of § 14-227a of the General Statutes-operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor or any drug or both. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge and requested a trial by jury. On March 2, 1973, after trial and a verdict of guilty was returned, the defendant duly filed his motion to set aside the verdict. That motion was denied on March 26, 1973, and the defendant appealed to this court.

The defendant has assigned as error various rulings of the trial court on the admission of evidence and testimony, its conduct of the trial, and its denial of defendant's motion to correct the transcript. Dispositive of this appeal is the defendant's assignment of error in respect to the admission of the results of the chemical analysis of his blood for alcohol content.

Simply put, the statutory conditions precedent for admission of the test results, as outlined in § 14-227a of the General Statutes, were not complied with. Since the word 'test' in the context of that statute refers to the chemical analysis of a sample of blood and not to a series of samples from different individuals, we conclude that the procedure used in testing the sample, as testified to by the chief state toxicologist, and as reported by him in state's exhibit C, did not satisfy the requirement of subsection 14-227a(b) (4) that the device used for testing the sample be checked for accuracy by the operator thereof immediately after the test.

In 2 Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases § 28.06 (3d Ed. 1971), Connecticut's requirement that the testing device be checked for accuracy immediately after the test is discussed as an exception to the general rule that state chemical test legislation does not set forth the exact methods or techniques to be followed. Our statutory requirement is clear and cannot be ignored. The plain words of the statute itself, as well as the reasoning in State v. Blanchard, 6 Conn.Cir. 303, 271 A.2d 860, show that subsection (b) of § 14-227a refers to statutory conditions precedent to the introduction of such evidence in a criminal prosecution. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court in State v. Novotasky, 5 Conn.Cir.Ct. 326, 330, 251 A.2d 189, 192 pointed out that 'subsection (b)(4) requires that the 'device used for such test was checked for accuracy . . . by the operator thereof immediately after the test' (italics supplied). The adverb 'immediately' is significant. The only device within the control of the operator which could immediately by checked for accuracy would be the device which the operator used in analyzing the sample.'

The word immediately '(w)here used in connection with human conduct, as in the case of a requirement that a certain thing shall be done immediately, . . . is generally held to require that the act shall be performed, not instantly, but without unreasonable delay having regard to the nature of the thing to be done.' O'Brien v. Wise & Upson Co., 108 Conn. 309, 312, 143 A. 155, 156; L. & E. Wertheimer, Inc. v. Wehle-Hartford Co., 126 Conn. 30, 34, 9 A.2d 279. The use of the word in the instant statute...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Morelli, 9080
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 27 Agosto 1991
    ...delay having regard to the thing to be done." O'Brien v. Wise & Upson Co., 108 Conn. 309, 312, 143 A. 155 (1928); State v. Anonymous, 32 Conn.Sup. 611, 613, 349 A.2d 146 (1975); see also Bailey v. Bruneau's Truck Service, Inc., 149 Conn. 46, 546, 175 A.2d 372 (1961). Whether there has been ......
  • State v. Anonymous
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • 1 Enero 1978
    ...the alleged offense as shown by a chemical analysis of the defendant's breath shall be admissible and competent. State v. Anonymous (1975-5), 32 Conn.Sup. 611, 349 A.2d 146; State v. Blanchard, 6 Conn.Cir. 303, 271 A.2d 860; State v. Novotasky, 5 Conn.Cir. 326, 328, 251 A.2d 189. In the pre......
  • Lindy v. Welfare Commissioner, 14
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • 16 Julio 1975
    ...... A fair hearing officer is only allowed to consider the evidence introduced at the hearing. General Statutes § 17-2b; Regs., Conn. State Agencies, § 17-2b-1. Also, no physician testified at the fair hearing.         The function of this court is to examine the record to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT