State v. Gallant
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C.J.
The defendant’s first objection to the evidence of the results of the test of a sample of his blood is that it was taken approximately one and one-half hours after his arrest. “ It is only logical that the sooner after the event the specimen is taken for analysis, the more accurate will be the estimate of blood alcohol concentration at the time of the act in issue. But because it could not be or was not done immediately after the event, does that mean the result of such a chemical test is inadmissible in subsequent litigation either civil or criminal? Our courts have answered in the negative,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Otte v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
- Jones v. City of Forrest CitySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
- State v. TrippSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- People v. MertzNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- State v. BenderSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
- Harlan v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
- State v. PetkusSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
- State v. LarochelleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.