Legal Opinion
Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided February 28, 2006No. 2 CA-CV 2005-0117PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PELANDER, Chief Judge.
¶ 1 The state appeals from the superior court’s ruling in a special action in which the court concluded that maintenance and calibration records for an Intoxilyzer 5000 breath-testing machine are testimonial in nature under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Based on that conclusion, the court ruled those records are inadmissible in the underlying criminal case against appellee Kyle Bohsaneurt unless he has an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the author of the records. We hold that the records do not fall within…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. Paul v. OatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- State v. ChunSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2008
- Commonwealth v. ZeiningerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
- Magruder v. Com.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2008
- State v. KingCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- Rackoff v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2006
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.