horizontal gaze nystagmus test (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

horizontal gaze nystagmus test in Arizona

7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Superior Courtgreen
ariz · 1986 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1989–2025
2 sentences

2025During the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which is an acceptable indicator of impairment, State v. Superior Court in and For Cochise County, 149 Ariz. 269, 279 (1986), Bryant showed four out of six cues of impairment.

2025During the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which is an acceptable indicator of impairment, State v. Superior Court in and For Cochise County, 149 Ariz. 269, 279 (1986), Bryant showed four out of six cues of impairment.

13
State v. Valenciagreen
arizctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016A horizontal gaze nystagmus test indicated Forister had a blood alcohol concentration 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402 , 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)). 2 STATE v. FORISTER Decision of the Court (BAC) of at least 0.08.

11
State v. Rienhardtgreen
ariz · 1997 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Officers asked if Wynn had had anything to drink, and Wynn told them she had consumed two “Long Island iced teas.” The officers conducted field 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 (1997) (citation omitted). 2 STATE v. WYNN Decision of the Court sobriety tests including a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, “walk-and- turn” test and “one-leg-stand” test.

2015Officers asked if Wynn had had anything to drink, and Wynn told them she had consumed two “Long Island iced teas.” The officers conducted field 1This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 (1997) (citation omitted). 2 STATE v. WYNN Decision of the Court sobriety tests including a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, “walk-and- turn” test and “one-leg-stand” test.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Frye v. United States red
cadc · 1923
2 sentences

1989The supreme court also held that the horizontal gaze nystagmus test is reliable under Frye v. United States, 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and is therefore admissible at trial, subject to certain limitations, on the issue of a defendant’s blood alcohol level.

1986On appeal, the defendant objects to the horizontal nystagmus test on the basis of lack of general acceptance in the scientific community under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).

21986–1989
Fischer v. State green
texcrimapp · 2008
1 sentence

2016Subject also has onset of nystagmus prior to forty-five degrees in both eyes.’ ” Id.

12016–2016
State v. Harm green
arizctapp · 2015
1 sentence

2016A horizontal gaze nystagmus test indicated Forister had a blood alcohol concentration 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402 , 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)). 2 STATE v. FORISTER Decision of the Court (BAC) of at least 0.08.

12016–2016

Where else courts name it

TX 48 (1994–2024) OH 42 (1990–2024) CT 24 (1994–2025) WV 15 (1990–2023) MO 15 (1998–2025) IL 13 (1988–2025) GA 12 (2001–2024) OR 12 (1987–2025) NY 11 (1996–2025) TN 11 (1998–2017) MS 9 (1994–2022) MD 9 (1995–2024) WA 8 (1994–2025) AZ 7 (1986–2025) LA 7 (1990–2007) PA 7 (1987–2024) IA 6 (1990–2023) CA 6 (1990–2019) NC 5 (2000–2020) AR 4 (1992–2012) WY 4 (2000–2019) HI 4 (2007–2026) AK 3 (1998–2021) CO 3 (2019–2024) NJ 3 (2003–2026) MA 2 (1997–1998) ND 2 (1999–2018) FL 2 (1997–1997) WI 2 (2012–2024) NE 2 (2020–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check