Legal Opinion

State v. LaFountain

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 18, 1967No. 5582PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C.J.

The defendant contends the blood test is inadmissible in evidence because only, a duly licensed physician or a qualified medical laboratory technician can testify that the blood sample was taken and without this testimony the State’s cases must be dismissed. “ The defendant does not contend that as a matter of fact the doctor contaminated the sample with some foreign substance ” but contends that in the absence of the doctor’s testimony, “ there is no basis for determining if the sample was obtained under sterile conditions. ” As stated in State v. Reenstierna, 101 N. H. 286, 287 the “State…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of Columbus v. MarksOhio Court of Appeals · 1963
  2. State v. FoxNebraska Supreme Court · 1964
  3. People v. ModellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. State v. ErdmanWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  5. State v. SchwadeNebraska Supreme Court · 1964

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. United States v. Orville E. Stifel, IICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
  2. State v. ArsenaultSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
  3. State v. ThresherSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
  4. State v. PetkusSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
  5. State v. WongSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984

14 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