State v. Roberts

Decision Date29 February 1960
Citation158 A.2d 458,102 N.H. 414
PartiesSTATE v. Philip ROBERTS.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Louis C. Wyman, Atty. Gen., Conrad Danais, County Atty., Manchester, and Irma A. Matthews, Law Asst., Concord, for State.

Leonard & Leonard, Nashua, Richard W. Leonard, Nashua, for defendant.

KENISON, Chief Justice.

The judicial approach in this state to scientific evidence generally and chemical tests for intoxication in particular was indicated in State v. Reenstierna, 101 N.H. 286, 287, 140 A.2d 572, 574. In that case it was stated that 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.' The legislative approach since 1949 is indicated by RSA 262:20 which provides that 'the court may admit evidence of the amount of alcohol in the defendant's blood at the time alleged, as shown by a chemical analysis of his breath, urine, or other bodily substance.' (Emphasis supplied.) Laws 1949, c. 204, § 1. The use of a breath test to determine intoxication was considered and allowed in State v. Baron, 98 N.H. 298, 299, 99 A.2d 912, where the 'alcometer test' was employed.

While a blood test requires the services of a physician, or chemist or medical technician, an alcometer test may be made by a policeman with a reasonable amount of training and experience. Donigan, Chemical Tests and The Law (The Traffic Institute--Northwestern University 1957) c. VII and 1959 supplement; City of Wichita v. Showalter, 1959, 185 Kan. 181, 341 P.2d 1001; 10 Syracuse L.Rev. 360 (1959). Although certain breath tests for determining intoxication may not have the same degree of accuracy as blood tests, 'there is substantial scientific support for the reasonable reliability of such tests.' McCormick, Scientific Evidence in Traffic Cases--Some Legal Problems, 4 So.Texas L.J. 193, 197 (1959); City of Seattle v. Bryan, Wash.1958, 333 P.2d 680. Friedemann & Dubowski, Chemical Testing Procedures for the Determination of Ethyl Alcohol, 170 A.M.A.J., pp. 47-71 (May 2, 1959).

Whatever test for intoxication is employed, it does not have conclusive effect. The statute (RSA 262:20) specifically provides that it 'shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question whether or not the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.' In this respect our law is quite different from the Rhode Island statute (Public Laws 1959, c. 101) which was enacted after the decision in State v. Gregoire, R.I.1959, 148 A.2d 751 and which requires tests to be made under stringent conditions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Coolidge
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • July 30, 1969
    ...which they contained, by means of procedures 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 The fact that the defendant's expert testified that he would have subjected the p......
  • State v. Wong
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • October 26, 1984
    ...test is operated properly is for the trial court to determine on the basis of the evidence before it. State v. Roberts, 102 N.H. 414, 417, 158 A.2d 458, 460 (1960). Here, the trial court properly ruled that any deficiencies in the administration of the test, assumed by the trial court for t......
  • State v. Larochelle
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • November 3, 1972
    ...are scientifically reliable (see State v. Reenstierna supra) and the progress from the meagerly trained operator in State v. Roberts, 102 N.H. 414, 158 A.2d 458 (1960), to the present case with tests by breathalyzer conducted only by a certified operator indicate a test procedure of general......
  • State v. Brodeur, 83-220
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • April 19, 1985
    ...have always been permitted to testify as to intoxication on the basis of sight, smell, speech and locomotion." State v. Roberts, 102 N.H. 414, 416, 158 A.2d 458, 460 (1960); State v. Gallant, 108 N.H. 72, 75, 227 A.2d 597, 599 (1967); State v. Kupetz, 115 N.H. 722, 723, 350 A.2d 335, 336 (1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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