10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brewer v. Motor Vehicle Division, Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences1995In McBroom , we interpreted Bowers to signify that a breath test is to “be administered in accordance with health department rules and regulations” and that, “ ‘if there was a deficiency in the evidence of compliance with board of health regulations, ... the intoxilyzer test results are not automatically inadmissible.’ ” Id. at 242 (quoting Brewer v. Motor Vehicle Division, 720 P.2d 564, 568 (Colo.1986)). 1988However, we also held in Brewer that “[e]ven if there was a deficiency in the evidence of compliance with board of health regulations, a question we do not decide, the intoxilyzer test results are not automatically inadmissible.” Id. (emphasis added). 4 *242 We came to the same conclusion in People v. Bowers, 716 P.2d 471 (Colo.1986), where we addressed the admissibility of BAC test results as evidence in a criminal trial, rather than in a revocation hearing. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bowersgreen2 sentences1988In People v. Bowers, 716 P.2d 471 (Colo.1986), this court held that intoxilyzer test results were admissible into evidence if the trial court was satisfied that the breath test was scientifically valid and reliable and was conducted by a qualified person using properly working testing devices. 1988However, we also held in Brewer that “[e]ven if there was a deficiency in the evidence of compliance with board of health regulations, a question we do not decide, the intoxilyzer test results are not automatically inadmissible.” Id. (emphasis added). 4 *242 We came to the same conclusion in People v. Bowers, 716 P.2d 471 (Colo.1986), where we addressed the admissibility of BAC test results as evidence in a criminal trial, rather than in a revocation hearing. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences1987Schocke v. State, supra; Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, 706 P.2d 5 (Colo.App.1985). 1986Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, 706 P.2d 5 (Colo.App. 1985). | 3 | 1986–1987 |
Charnes v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2002However, under § 424-1301(2)(b), C.R.8.2001, a licensee is entitled to "offer direct and cireurastantial evidence to show that there is a disparity between what the tests show and other facts so that the trier of fact could infer that the tests were in some way defective or inaccurate." See Charnes v. Robinson, supra, 772 P.2d at 67 (quoting identical text from predecessor statute). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Colorado Department of Revenue v. McBroom
green
1 sentence1995In McBroom , we interpreted Bowers to signify that a breath test is to “be administered in accordance with health department rules and regulations” and that, “ ‘if there was a deficiency in the evidence of compliance with board of health regulations, ... the intoxilyzer test results are not automatically inadmissible.’ ” Id. at 242 (quoting Brewer v. Motor Vehicle Division, 720 P.2d 564, 568 (Colo.1986)). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schocke v. ST., DEPT. OF REV., MOTOR VEH. DIV.
green
2 sentences1987Schocke v. State, supra. Intoxilyzer test results are presumed accurate if the test was conducted by a certified operator in accordance with Health Department regulations on a machine shown to be operating correctly at the time of the test. 1987Schocke v. State, supra; Aultman v. Motor Vehicle Division, 706 P.2d 5 (Colo.App.1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
California v. Trombetta
green
1 sentence1985Because the testing of a breath sample by the defendant would probably simply confirm the results of the state’s intoxilyzer test, and because the defendant could have demonstrated any lack of reliability of that test by a number of other means, the court concluded that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce breath-analysis tests at trial.” 10 104 S.Ct. at 2535 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Aragon
green
2 sentences1984Ramirez v. People, 682 P.2d 1181 (Colo.1984); People v. Aragon, 186 Colo. 91 , 525 P.2d 1134 (1974); People v. Barker, 180 Colo. 28 , 501 P.2d 1041 (1972). 1984Ramirez v. People, 682 P.2d 1181 (Colo.1984); People v. Aragon, 186 Colo. 91 , 525 P.2d 1134 (1974); People v. Barker, 180 Colo. 28 , 501 P.2d 1041 (1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Barker
green
2 sentences1984Ramirez v. People, 682 P.2d 1181 (Colo.1984); People v. Aragon, 186 Colo. 91 , 525 P.2d 1134 (1974); People v. Barker, 180 Colo. 28 , 501 P.2d 1041 (1972). 1984Ramirez v. People, 682 P.2d 1181 (Colo.1984); People v. Aragon, 186 Colo. 91 , 525 P.2d 1134 (1974); People v. Barker, 180 Colo. 28 , 501 P.2d 1041 (1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Ramirez v. People
green
1 sentence1984Ramirez v. People, 682 P.2d 1181 (Colo.1984); People v. Aragon, 186 Colo. 91 , 525 P.2d 1134 (1974); People v. Barker, 180 Colo. 28 , 501 P.2d 1041 (1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.