horizontal gaze nystagmus test in California

2019The officer asked Muniz to perform three FSTs: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand test. ( Muniz , supra , 496 U.S. at p. 585 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 .) Muniz performed poorly.

2019The officer asked Muniz to perform three FSTs: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand test. ( Muniz , supra , 496 U.S. at p. 585 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 .) Muniz performed poorly.

2019In *653 any event, any error by the trial court in denying Cooper's motion to suppress her estimate of 23 *520 seconds on the Romberg test was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 .) Cooper's performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test showed impairment, she refused to do two other FSTs, she was swaying and unsteady on her feet on the roadway, and she smelled of alcohol.

2019In *653 any event, any error by the trial court in denying Cooper's motion to suppress her estimate of 23 *520 seconds on the Romberg test was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 .) Cooper's performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test showed impairment, she refused to do two other FSTs, she was swaying and unsteady on her feet on the roadway, and she smelled of alcohol.

1995In light of these concessions, we tend to agree with the following observation by the Iowa Supreme Court: “[T]he principal obstacle to the admissibility of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test may be its pretentiously scientific name.” (State v. Murphy, supra, 451 N.W.2d at p. 156 .) That nystagmus testing is neither definitive nor able to determine intoxication alone, does not, of course, render it irrelevant.

1990We are in accord with those courts of other states which have held that HGN is not inherently more “scientific” than the more familiar field sobriety tests. “[T]he principal obstacle to the admissibility of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test may be its pretentiously scientific name.” (State v. Murphy, supra, 451 N.W.2d at p. 156 .) “The gaze nystagmus test, as do the other commonly used field sobriety tests, requires only the personal observation of the officer administering it.

2015When she reached step nine, . . . she turned clockwise instead of counter clockwise as instructed. . . . [She] used both feet to make the turn instead of keeping her front foot in place‖ and on the return similarly ―missed heel to toe three of the steps by 2–4 inches.‖3 2 ― ‗Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotary. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words, jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.] Some investigators b

2015When she reached step nine, . . . she turned clockwise instead of counter clockwise as instructed. . . . [She] used both feet to make the turn instead of keeping her front foot in place‖ and on the return similarly ―missed heel to toe three of the steps by 2–4 inches.‖3 2 ― ‗Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotary. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words, jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.] Some investigators b

1994As noted in People v. Ojeda, supra, 225 Cal. App.3d at page 408 , quoting from another case, "`[T]he principal obstacle to the admissibility of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test may be its pretentiously scientific name.'" A jury might be unduly swayed by HGN evidence solely by reason of its technical nomenclature.

1994As noted in People v. Ojeda, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at page 408 , quoting from another case, ‘“[T]he principal obstacle to the admissibility of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test may be its pretentiously scientific name.’ ” A jury might be unduly swayed by HGN evidence solely by reason of its technical nomenclature.

1990It is objective in nature and does not require expert interpretation.” (State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 767 ], There the officer testified that the defendant had a nystagmus reaction at a deviation from the center point of less than 20 percent, and concluded therefrom that his blood-alcohol level was between .15 and .16.

1990It is objective in nature and does not require expert interpretation.” (State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 767 ], There the officer testified that the defendant had a nystagmus reaction at a deviation from the center point of less than 20 percent, and concluded therefrom that his blood-alcohol level was between .15 and .16.

1990It is objective in nature and does not *409 require expert interpretation." ( State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal. App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal. Rptr. 767 ].

1990It is objective in nature and does not require expert interpretation.” (State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 767 ], There the officer testified that the defendant had a nystagmus reaction at a deviation from the center point of less than 20 percent, and concluded therefrom that his blood-alcohol level was between .15 and .16.

1990It is objective in nature and does not require expert interpretation.” (State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 767 ], There the officer testified that the defendant had a nystagmus reaction at a deviation from the center point of less than 20 percent, and concluded therefrom that his blood-alcohol level was between .15 and .16.

1990It is objective in nature and does not require expert interpretation.” (State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 767 ], There the officer testified that the defendant had a nystagmus reaction at a deviation from the center point of less than 20 percent, and concluded therefrom that his blood-alcohol level was between .15 and .16.

1990It is objective in nature and does not require expert interpretation.” (State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 767 ], There the officer testified that the defendant had a nystagmus reaction at a deviation from the center point of less than 20 percent, and concluded therefrom that his blood-alcohol level was between .15 and .16.

1990It is objective in nature and does not require expert interpretation.” (State v. Nagel (1986) 30 Ohio App.3d 80 [ 506 N.E.2d 285, 286 ]; contra, State v. Reed (1987) 83 Ore.App. 451 [ 732 P.2d 66, 68 ]; State v. Superior Court (1986) 149 Ariz. 269 [ 718 P.2d 171, 178 , 60 A.L.R.4th 1103 ].) Defendant relies solely on People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 767 ], There the officer testified that the defendant had a nystagmus reaction at a deviation from the center point of less than 20 percent, and concluded therefrom that his blood-alcohol level was between .15 and .16.