City of Wichita v. Showalter, 41268
| Decision Date | 10 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41268,41268 |
| Citation | 341 P.2d 1001,185 Kan. 181 |
| Parties | CITY OF WICHITA, Appellee, v. William E. SHOWALTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The record in a criminal action for driving while intoxicated is examined and it is held: (a) The trial court did not err in admitting the results of an alcometer test which had been taken with the consent of the defendant; (b) The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury as to the guilt of the defendant, and the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's demurrer to the evidence.
Russell Shultz, Wichita, argued the cause, and was on the briefs for appellant.
Robert C. Helsel, Wichita, argued the cause, and Fred W. Aley, Wichita, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
The appellant in this appeal was convicted of driving while intoxicated, both in the police court of the city of Wichita and on appeal to the district court. He now appeals his conviction to this court.
In this appeal, the appellant's first contention is that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial for the reason that the evidence as to an alcometer test should have been excluded because the prosecution failed to show that the operator of the machine fully understood all of the workings thereof and did not know whether the machine was in proper condition to be used in making the test.
The prosecution introduced the testimony of James Maloney, a laboratory technician with the sheriff's office of Sedgwick County. Mr. Maloney testified in general as to the workings of the alcometer, and that testimony need not be set out here. He also testified that the actual operation of such a machine was extremely simple; that if it were not operated correctly, it would not operate at all; that a period of fifteen minutes was sufficient in which to train a person to competently operate the machine since all that was necessary was to instruct him in the order of pushing certain buttons.
A member of the Wichita Police Department, George F. Blurton, testified as to the arrest of the defendant and as to administering the test to him on the alcometer, and that defendant acquiesced in taking the test. Blurton testified that he had been instructed in the art of operating the machine by Lieutenant Clyde Bevis, a graduate chemist and laboratory technician. There was also testimony that Lieutenant Bevis prepared the vials to be used on the machine. Counsel for the defendant in cross-examining Blurton asked several questions as to the chemical analysis of the liquid in the vial in the machine, as to when the machine had been last examined, and as to other intricacies of the machine. The witness quite frankly admitted that he could not answer these questions.
The defendant then moved to strike out the evidence in regard to the test made upon the alcometer which motion was overruled by the court. We believe that under all the circumstances the court did not err (City of Seattle v. Bryan, Wash.1958, 333 P.2d 680; Toms v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 60, 239 P.2d 812).
The defendant cites State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622, 185 P.2d 147, and argues that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Sioux Falls v. Kohler, 9944
...893; State v. Miller, 1960, 64 N.J.Super. 262, 165 A.2d 829; Toms v. State, 1952, 95 Okl.Cr. 60, 239 P.2d 812; City of Wichita v. Showalter, 1959, 185 Kan. 181, 341 P.2d 1001; Omohundro v. Arlington County, 1953, 194 Va. 773, 75 S.E.2d 496 and 44 Minn.L.R. 673 This was not a criminal action......
-
State v. Graham
...State v. Miller, 146 N.W.2d 159 (N.D.1966); Ward v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 355 S.W.2d 839 (1960); City of Wichita v. Showalter, 185 Kan. 181, 341 P.2d 1001 (1959); Hill v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 313, 256 S.W.2d 93 (1953) (reversal based in part upon the fact that there was no showing that ......
-
State v. Foster, 44493
...of blood alcohol test reports and testimony in connection therewith has been discussed in several cases. In City of Wichita v. Showalter, 185 Kan. 181, 341 P.2d 1001, the prosecution introduced the testimony of a laboratory technician with the sheriff's office of Sedgwick County. The techni......
-
City of Abilene v. Hall
...and had a complete and full understanding of the device which he was using to make the test. This court in City of Wichita v. Showalter, 185 Kan. 181, 341 P.2d 1001, held the testimony of the officer administering a test on the alcometer was properly received in evidence even though the pro......