State v. LaFountain
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
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
- City of Columbus v. MarksOhio Court of Appeals · 1963
- State v. FoxNebraska Supreme Court · 1964
- People v. ModellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- State v. ErdmanWashington Supreme Court · 1964
- State v. SchwadeNebraska Supreme Court · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- United States v. Orville E. Stifel, IICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- State v. ArsenaultSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
- State v. ThresherSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
- State v. PetkusSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
- State v. WongSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.