State v. Reenstierna
| Decision Date | 24 April 1958 |
| Parties | STATE v. Jon G. REENSTIERNA. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William D. Tribble, Manchester (by brief), for defendant.
The utilization of probative methods developed by modern medicine and science as an aid for a judge or jury to determine disputed questions of fact has received hospitable recognition in this state by both judicial decision and statute. State v. Thorp, 86 N.H. 501, 171 A. 633, 172 A. 879; State v. Mihoy, 98 N.H. 38, 93 A.2d 661, 35 A.L.R.2d 852; Groulx v. Groulx, 98 N.H. 481, 103 A.2d 188, 46 A.L.R.2d 994; State, by Dolloff v. Sargent, 100 N.H. 29, 118 A.2d 596; RSA ch. 522; RSA 262:20. In motor vehicle offenses a chemical test to determine intoxication is considered one example of a reliable scientific method, the validity of which is not open to serious objection here or elsewhere. RSA 262:20; State v. Sturtevant, 96 N.H. 99, 70 A.2d 909; State v. Baron, 98 N.H. 298, 99 A.2d 912; Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 77 S.Ct. 408, 1 L.Ed.2d 448. In the present case the defendant does not contest the validity of the statute but contends that the result of the chemical test was erroneously admitted in evidence because of the manner in which it was produced in court. See 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) § 2129 (supp.).
The State has the burden of proving that the chemical test for intoxication was correctly administered in the particular case. McCormick, Evidence, § 176, p. 377 (1954); Ladd and Gibson, Legal Medical Aspects of Blood Tests, 29 Va.L.Rev. 749, 755-758. One of the most important prerequisites for the admission of the results of chemical tests for intoxication is that the specimen analyzed shall be traced to the accused. Note, 51 Mich.L.Rev. 72, 79 (1952); anno. 21 A.L.R.2d 1216. The State is required to establish the essential links in the chain of evidence relied on to identify the blood analyzed as being the blood taken from the accused. Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 197 Va. 527, 90 S.E.2d 257; Estes v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 283 S.W.2d 52; Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Chugg, 6 Utah 2d 399, 315 P.2d 277. A recent comprehensive study of the decisions relating to the proper presentation of chemical tests for intoxication including practical suggestions is found in Donigan, Chemical Tests and The Law (The Traffic Institute--Northwestern University 1957), c. VI and VII.
In this case the blood sample taken from the defendant has not been identified with and traced to the analysis made by the State Department of Health. However likely it may be that they are one and the same, the State has failed to prove it. The letter received by the chief of police was not a record of his office which is admissible under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act. RSA ch. 521. McGowan v. City of Los Angeles, 100 Cal.App.2d 386, 223 P.2d 862, 21 A.L.R.2d 1206. Since the letter introduced in evidence by the chief of police was hearsay and incompetent, and there was no other evidence to connect the blood sample taken from the defendant with the sample analyzed, the order must be
Defendant's exception sustained.
DUNCAN, J., dissented; the others concurred.
My differences with the majority of the court revolve about the question of whether an opinion upon the merits may properly be expressed. The respondent's appeal to the Superior Court vacated the judgment of the municipal court (State v. Cook, 96 N.H. 212,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coolidge
...sufficiently accepted by scientists familiar with this limited field. See State v. Roberts, 102 N.H. 414, 158 A.2d 458; State v. Reenstierna, 101 N.H. 286, 140 A.2d 572. The fact that the defendant's expert testified that he would have subjected the particles to longer periods of radiation,......
-
State v. Larochelle
...this statute the State would have produced the person who conducted the blood alcohol content test as a witness. State v. Reenstierna, 101 N.H. 286, 140 A.2d 572 (1958). The defendant argues that to offer only the written record of the test as proof of its conduct and result deprives him of......
-
United States v. Stifel
...sufficiently accepted by scientists familiar with this limited field. See State v. Roberts, 102 N.H. 414, 158 A.2d 458; State v. Reenstierna, 101 N.H. 286, 140 A.2d 572. "The fact that the defendant\'s expert testified that he would have subjected the particles to longer periods of radiatio......
-
State v. Lafountain, 5582
...testimony, 'there is no basis for determining if the sample was obtained under sterile conditionsl.' As stated in State v. Reenstierna, 101 N.H. 286, 287, 140 A.2d 572, 574, the 'State has the burden of proving that the chemical test for intoxication was correctly administered in the partic......