results test in Kansas

2011City of Shawnee v. Gruss, 2 Kan.

1993“Testimony which establishes that a breathalyzer test machine has been approved and certified by the State as of the date of the test in question is sufficient foundation testimony to establish validity of test results from the machine.” “Testimony which establishes that the operator of a breathalyzer machine has been certified by the State of Kansas and is presently certified as an operator, and that the test he conducted is in accordance with the operational procedure of said breathalyzer machine is sufficient foundation for the operator’s testimony relative to the results of the test.” City

1983It may adjust the results of the test year by allowing for known changes to make the test year representative of the future. . . .’ Commonwealth v. VEPCO, 211 Va. 758, 771 , 180 S.E.2d 675 , 89 Pub.

1983It may adjust the results of the test year by allowing for known changes to make the test year representative of the future. . . .’ Commonwealth v. VEPCO, 211 Va. 758, 771 , 180 S.E.2d 675 , 89 Pub.

2020In Molitor, our Supreme Court held that unless the HGN test is proven to be scientifically reliable, the results of the test are inadmissible for any reason—including to establish reasonable suspicion to request a PBT. 301 Kan. at 264 .

2018In State v. Wade , 284 Kan. 527 , 161 P.3d 704 (2007), the defendant went to trial on charges alleging first-degree murder based on alternative theories of premeditation and felony murder-with aggravated burglary as the inherently dangerous felony-and a separate charge of aggravated burglary.

2018In State v. Wade , 284 Kan. 527 , 161 P.3d 704 (2007), the defendant went to trial on charges alleging first-degree murder based on alternative theories of premeditation and felony murder-with aggravated burglary as the inherently dangerous felony-and a separate charge of aggravated burglary.

2012However, if Haddock chooses not to go forward with further DNA testing on the shoes and shirt, the court must determine on the basis of the evidence before it whether such results are favorable, unfavorable, or inconclusive and apply the appropriate provisions of K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-2512(f)(2) or (3).” Haddock II, 282 Kan. at 503 .

1994The distinction between `negligence' and `negligence per se' is the means and method of ascertainment, in that the former must be found by a factfinder from the evidence, while the latter results from violation of the specific requirement of law or ordinance; and the only fact for the determination of the factfinder is the commission or omission of the specific act inhibited or required." Watkins v. Hartsock, 245 Kan. 756, 761 , 783 P.2d 1293 (1989).

1994The distinction between `negligence' and `negligence per se' is the means and method of ascertainment, in that the former must be found by a factfinder from the evidence, while the latter results from violation of the specific requirement of law or ordinance; and the only fact for the determination of the factfinder is the commission or omission of the specific act inhibited or required." Watkins v. Hartsock, 245 Kan. 756, 761 , 783 P.2d 1293 (1989).

1993“I will therefore, in short, sustain the plaintiffs’ motion and direct that it—the videotapes not be shown and that the evidence not be adduced in the form of testimony from the doctor concerning the same.” In Timsah v. General Motors Corp., 225 Kan. 305 , 591 P.2d 154 (1979), plaintiffs’ truck went'out of control, turned over, and remained on its side for some time.

1993“I will therefore, in short, sustain the plaintiffs’ motion and direct that it—the videotapes not be shown and that the evidence not be adduced in the form of testimony from the doctor concerning the same.” In Timsah v. General Motors Corp., 225 Kan. 305 , 591 P.2d 154 (1979), plaintiffs’ truck went'out of control, turned over, and remained on its side for some time.

1991In Kelly , the question of whether the failure to give the mandatory statutory warnings would result in suppression of the results of the blood alcohol test was answered, and the Court of Appeals held: “Suppression of the results of the test administered by the State pursuant to K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 8-1001 and any evidence obtained following a request for counsel after the test is administered by the State is the proper remedy for violation of 8-1001(f)(l)(E).” 14 Kan.

1987Both the results of the test, if taken, or the refusal to take it, if declined, are admissible in evidence, and the admission of such evidence does not offend the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or the right to due process.” 233 Kan. at 694 .

1987Both the results of the test, if taken, or the refusal to take it, if declined, are admissible in evidence, and the admission of such evidence does not offend the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or the right to due process." 233 Kan. at 694 .

1986In State v. Young, 228 Kan. 355, 363 , 614 P.2d 441 (1980), this court held that an arresting officer is not obligated to advise a person of his statutory right to an independent chemical test by a person of his choosing and that the failure of the arresting officer to automatically furnish the defendant *583 with a sample of his breath is not a denial of due process.

1986In State v. Young, 228 Kan. 355, 363 , 614 P.2d 441 (1980), this court held that an arresting officer is not obligated to advise a person of his statutory right to an independent chemical test by a person of his choosing and that the failure of the arresting officer to automatically furnish the defendant *583 with a sample of his breath is not a denial of due process.

1979We adhere to the test found in State v. Foster, 198 Kan. 52 , 422 P.2d 964 (1967), which states a proper foundation is laid for the admission of the results of such an analysis where a qualified witness identifies the *495 report and explains the method and procedure of administering the test.

1979We adhere to the test found in State v. Foster, 198 Kan. 52 , 422 P.2d 964 (1967), which states a proper foundation is laid for the admission of the results of such an analysis where a qualified witness identifies the *495 report and explains the method and procedure of administering the test.

1976This ruling accords not only with this court’s decision in State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622 , 185 P. 2d 147 , but with the great majority of American jurisdictions. (23 A. L.

1976This ruling accords not only with this court’s decision in State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622 , 185 P. 2d 147 , but with the great majority of American jurisdictions. (23 A. L.

1972In State v. Lee, 197 Kan. 463 , 419 P. 2d 927 , cert. den. 386 U. S. 925 , 17 L.

1972In State v. Lee, 197 Kan. 463 , 419 P. 2d 927 , cert. den. 386 U. S. 925 , 17 L.

1972In State v. Lee, 197 Kan. 463 , 419 P. 2d 927 , cert. den. 386 U. S. 925 , 17 L.

1967He was the proper party to testify concerning the results of the analysis. . . .” In State v. Johnson, 190 Kan. 795 , 378 P. 2d 167 , a blood alcohol report of the State Board of Health laboratory was offered during the testimony of the sheriff of Johnson County.

1967He was the proper party to testify concerning the results of the analysis. . . .” In State v. Johnson, 190 Kan. 795 , 378 P. 2d 167 , a blood alcohol report of the State Board of Health laboratory was offered during the testimony of the sheriff of Johnson County.

1948Ed. 966 , 38 S. Ct. 447 : “The error results from disregarding the broad-distinction which exists between the right to be heard in courts of justice, on the one hand, and the necessity for the granting of authority, on the other, to review the results of such hearing by proceedings in error or appeal, [citing cases.]” (p. 30.) See, also, 2 Am.

1907Law, 612; Hoertz v. Jefferson Southern Pond Draining Co. [Ky.], 84 S. W. 1141 .) Where, as in this case, a legislative body decides whether an improvement shall be made, what its extent shall be, what property shall be charged with its cost, and what method of apportionment shall be employed, it is .not clear that the mere ascertainment of the actual results of such rule may not be committed to a court.