Legal Opinion
Ransford v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 5, 1990No. 88-715, 88-1579, 89-161 and 89-625PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
These consolidated appeals present the common question whether, in a prosecution for the per se offense of driving while intoxicated, D.C.Code § 40-716(b)(l) (1990), the government must present expert testimony “extrapolating” or relating the results of a blood alcohol test administered after the accused’s arrest to his blood alcohol level at the time of operation of the vehicle. We answer that question in the negative and affirm the convictions.
I
As this court has explained before, Washington v. District of Columbia, 538 A.2d 1151 (D.C.1988), there are “two dis tinct…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Campbell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State v. TischioSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Desmond v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1989
- Doyle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1981
- Murray v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Poulnot v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Haas v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
- State v. McGowanMontana Supreme Court · 2006
- Bierner v. State, Taxation & Revenue DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1992
- United States v. Kristen SmithCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.