Legal Opinion

State v. Tynon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 25, 1998No. 96-823-C; CA A95383PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*695EDMONDS, J.

This case is an appeal by the state because the trial court excluded evidence of an Intoxilyzer test result in a prosecution for driving while under the influence after the trial court ruled that the pretest observation period, as required by OAR 257-030-0070(2)(a),1 was not met. We reverse.

At the hearing on the motion to exclude evidence of the Intoxilyzer test result, Officer Bigman, the operator of the test, and Officer Lenhardt, who observed the administration of the test, testified. Bigman said that he inspected defendant’s mouth at 10:20 p.m. and that it showed no indication…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. McVayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. State v. BaldersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. State v. DemingsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  4. State v. HerringCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. SchneiderCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. State v. SnuggerudCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  3. State v. BarlettaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  4. State v. LeinweberCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  5. State v. JubieCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API