Edwards v. State, No. M--75--348
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | BRETT |
| Citation | 544 P.2d 60 |
| Docket Number | No. M--75--348 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1975 |
| Parties | Rhenna Navajo EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
Page 60
v.
The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1976.
Peter K. Schaffer, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., James L. Swartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jahn D. Rohrer, Legal Intern, for appellee.
BRETT, Presiding Judge:
Appellant, Rhenna Navajo Edwards, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRM--74--3211, for the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, a violation of 47 O.S. § 11--902. Defendant was sentenced to serve a term of six (6) months imprisonment which was suspended except for the first ten (10) days, and was fined in the amount of One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
Defendant's sole assignment of error constitutes a question of law, the resolution of which neither requires nor necessarily turns upon a recitation of the facts therein. Defendant contends that the District Court committed error when, during a hearing to consider a Motion to Suppress Evidence, it refused to grant defendant's Motion and ruled to admit the evidence in question, specifically, the results of a breathalyzer test to which defendant had voluntarily subjected himself. Defendant maintains that the intentional though non-malicious destruction of certain components employed in the instrument's normal operation deprived him of an opportunity to examine the evidence against him and amounted to the destruction of material evidence which could have potentially established his guilt or innocence; that the District Court's admission of the results of the breathalyzer test deprived defendant of a fair trial and thereby denied him his right to due process. In so claiming, defendant predicates his argument on the opinion issued by the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1960), wherein the accused had requested and was denied information deliberately withheld by the State, a violation, it was found, of the accused's right to due process. Though the suppression of evidence is not at issue here, an important factor which distinguishes this case from Brady, its destruction does pose a similar problem in that it is no longer available and the possibility for re- examination simply does not exist. Defendant argues that if the evidence destroyed had been preserved, it would have afforded him an opportunity
Page 62
not only to invalidate the test result, but also to obtain evidence material to a determination of his innocence as to the offense charged. He maintains that, in its absence, the District Court, if the ruling in Brady is to be observed and his right to a fair trial to be protected, had no other choice but to exclude the test result from its deliberations. With this we cannot agree.The breathalyzer, an apparatus especially designed to analyze a sample of breath as a means by which the alcoholic content of the blood may be determined, is considered a reliable device for measuring levels of intoxication. Alexander v. State, Okl.Cr., 305 P.2d 572 (1956). Defendant does not purport to question the court's acceptance of either the technological basis upon which the instrument operates or the results derived from its use generally, rather, he does instead claim as his right the opportunity to challenge the technical accuracy of the particular device employed in the examination to which he himself was subjected. The component to which he specifically refers may be described as a sealed glass vial or ampoule, containing a prepared, mixed chemical solution which is considered an essential factor in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Neal
...668, 671 (W.D.Okl.1976), rev'd, 577 F.2d 1119 (10th Cir.1978); State v. Preston, 585 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Mo.App.1979); Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d 60, 64 (Okl.Cr.App.1975); State v. Helmer, 278 N.W.2d 808, 812 (S.D.1979); Turpin v. State, 606 S.W.2d 907, 918 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (en banc); State v......
-
State v. Canaday, No. 45309
...State v. Bryan, 133 N.J.Super. 369, 336 A.2d 511 (1974); State v. Watson, 48 Ohio App.2d 110, 355 N.E.2d 883 (1975); Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d 60...
-
State v. Williams, No. 83-504-A
...on the lack of any scientific evidence to support a defendant's claim that the ampoules are material evidence. In Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d 60 (Okla.Crim.App.1975), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the defendant's claim of faulty breathalyzer testing as speculation. The cour......
-
People v. Southern California Edison Co.
...counsel, has discovered some jury misconduct during the course of the proceedings from gambling on the outcome of the jury's deliberations[544 P.2d 60] Page 60 while secretly preserving the error to be raised on a motion for a new trial in the event of an unfavorable verdict. The rule is we......
-
Com. v. Neal
...668, 671 (W.D.Okl.1976), rev'd, 577 F.2d 1119 (10th Cir.1978); State v. Preston, 585 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Mo.App.1979); Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d 60, 64 (Okl.Cr.App.1975); State v. Helmer, 278 N.W.2d 808, 812 (S.D.1979); Turpin v. State, 606 S.W.2d 907, 918 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (en banc); State v......
-
State v. Canaday, No. 45309
...State v. Bryan, 133 N.J.Super. 369, 336 A.2d 511 (1974); State v. Watson, 48 Ohio App.2d 110, 355 N.E.2d 883 (1975); Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d 60...
-
State v. Williams, No. 83-504-A
...on the lack of any scientific evidence to support a defendant's claim that the ampoules are material evidence. In Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d 60 (Okla.Crim.App.1975), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the defendant's claim of faulty breathalyzer testing as speculation. The cour......
-
People v. Southern California Edison Co.
...counsel, has discovered some jury misconduct during the course of the proceedings from gambling on the outcome of the jury's deliberations[544 P.2d 60] Page 60 while secretly preserving the error to be raised on a motion for a new trial in the event of an unfavorable verdict. The rule is we......