Stroupe v. Commonwealth

Convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants, William Lewis Stroupe complains that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a certificate reflecting the results of a breathalyzer test to which he consented. The basis of his complaint is that the Commonwealth introduced no evidence to show that the chemical analysis of defendant’s breath was valid or that the test had been conducted in accordance with the procedures and standards required by Code § 18.1-55.1 (Cum. Supp. 1973). 1 The arresting officer, the only witness for the Commonwealth, did not…