Legal Opinion

State v. Michener

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 1, 1976No. C 75-09-3056, CA 5494; C 75-09-3057, CA 5495; C 75-09-2827, CA 5496PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangtry, J.

These cases present the single question of whether, because the defendants were denied an opportunity to conduct their own examination and analysis of breathalyzer test ampules used to measure the level of alcohol present in their circulatory systems at the time of their arrests, they would be deprived of their right to a fair trial by the admission of "breathalyzer evidence” held by the state. The circuit court agreed with defendants’ contention that a due process violation would, in fact, result from the admission of such evidence and ordered its suppression. We affirm.

Defendant Michener…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. People v. HitchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Lauderdale v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State v. KoenneckeOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Hanson v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WoodwardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
  2. Turpin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
  3. State v. CanadayWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Commonwealth v. NealMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  5. Commonwealth v. KaterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000

51 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