State v. Karol
| Decision Date | 25 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 56269,56269 |
| Citation | 316 So.2d 106 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Gene L. KAROL. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Bart Eaton, Percy, Macmurdo, Gray & Eaton, Baton Rouge, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent.
Relator was convicted after a bench trial of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to pay costs and a fine of $150.00; in default of payment relator is ordered to serve thirty datys. We granted writs to decide whether the trial court erred in admitting the results of a PEI test administered to determine relator's intoxication without requiring the State to first prove that the state department of health approved the methods used by the operator who administered the test. La.R.S. 32:663 provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis supplied).
In State v. Jones, La., 316 So.2d 100, decided this date, we determined that the 'method' promulgated by the state department of health which purports to prescribe the procedure for conducting the breath test for determining alcohol concentration in the blood even if judicially cognizable, does not satisfy the requirements set forth in La.R.S. 32:663. In the instant case, as in Jones, the State failed to produce at trial evidence that the procedure used had been approved by the state department of health, although it has subsequently come to light that the state department of health did attempt to comply with its duties under the statute by informing the assistant director of the State Police Crime Laboratory of its approval of the use of the Photo-Electric Intoximeter by letter of 9--19--69 and by setting forth approval of the use of the Photo-Electric Intoximeter manufactured by Intoximeter, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, in a directive of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bailey
...v. Morrison, 392 So.2d 1037 (La.1980); State v. Goetz, 374 So.2d 1219 (La.1979); State v. McGuffey, 316 So.2d 107 (La.1975); State v. Karol, 316 So.2d 106 (La.1975); State v. Jones, 316 So.2d 100 The regulations in effect at the time of Bailey's arrest required the Louisiana State Police Cr......
-
State v. Morrison
...testing must be set out by said rules, that the state must be required to produce evidence of comportment with such rules, State v. Karol, 316 So.2d 106 (La.1975); that the state must lay a proper foundation that the chemicals used in the testing of the P.E.I. machine were of standard chemi......
-
Com. v. Sesler
...by statute, the courts have held the test results to be inadmissible. See: State v. Jones, La., 316 So.2d 100 (1975); State v. Karol, --- La. ----, 316 So.2d 106 (1975); State v. Gallant, 108 N.H. 72, 227 A.2d 597 (1967), (which held the requirements of the statute were mandatory and not A ......
-
State v. Jones
...of this matter. In related cases also being decided today, the same issue, as it relates to those cases, will be decided. See State v. Karol, La., 316 So.2d 106; State v. McGuffey, La., 316 So.2d 107; and City of Monroe v. Robinson, La., 316 So.2d On November 16, 1974 a pick-up truck being ......