Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware 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 |
|---|---|---|
Milligan v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Dec. 11, 2000); and then quoting State v. Milligan, 116 A.3d 1232, 1237 (Del. 2015) (explaining that “the phlebotomist is not a required chain of custody witness for the introduction of blood results in a DUI trial, and is not needed to ‘show the authenticity of the sample, or the accuracy of the testing device’”); Guilfoil v. State, 135 A.3d 78 (Del. 2016) (TABLE) (admitting BAC test results without live testimony from one of the transporters of same). 88 See 21 Del. | 1 | 1 |
Clawson v. Stategreen2 sentences2023We addressed this requirement in Clawson v. State10 for breath tests and in Hunter v. State11 for blood tests.12 In each case, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting BAC test results where the evidence showed that the State violated unambiguous manufacturer instructions for producing reliable test results.13 As we have explained, “[f]ollowing the manufacturer’s use requirements ensures the reliability of the scientific test.”14 “It is this guarantee of reliability and 9 See Clawson v. State, 867 A.2d 187, 192 (Del. 2005) (“[W]e review a trial court’s ruling admitt 2023We addressed this requirement in Clawson v. State10 for breath tests and in Hunter v. State11 for blood tests.12 In each case, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting BAC test results where the evidence showed that the State violated unambiguous manufacturer instructions for producing reliable test results.13 As we have explained, “[f]ollowing the manufacturer’s use requirements ensures the reliability of the scientific test.”14 “It is this guarantee of reliability and 9 See Clawson v. State, 867 A.2d 187, 192 (Del. 2005) (“[W]e review a trial court’s ruling admitt | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Stategreen2 sentences2023We addressed this requirement in Clawson v. State10 for breath tests and in Hunter v. State11 for blood tests.12 In each case, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting BAC test results where the evidence showed that the State violated unambiguous manufacturer instructions for producing reliable test results.13 As we have explained, “[f]ollowing the manufacturer’s use requirements ensures the reliability of the scientific test.”14 “It is this guarantee of reliability and 9 See Clawson v. State, 867 A.2d 187, 192 (Del. 2005) (“[W]e review a trial court’s ruling admitt 2023We addressed this requirement in Clawson v. State10 for breath tests and in Hunter v. State11 for blood tests.12 In each case, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting BAC test results where the evidence showed that the State violated unambiguous manufacturer instructions for producing reliable test results.13 As we have explained, “[f]ollowing the manufacturer’s use requirements ensures the reliability of the scientific test.”14 “It is this guarantee of reliability and 9 See Clawson v. State, 867 A.2d 187, 192 (Del. 2005) (“[W]e review a trial court’s ruling admitt | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Stategreen1 sentence2020There were several BAC test strips, *5 See, Mills v. State, 2016 WL 97494, at *3 (Del.); Day v. State, 2011 WL 3617797 (Del.) (claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion was waived when defendant voluntarily entered his guilty plea, since voluntary guilty plea waives any claims of error occurring prior to the entry of the plea); Hickman v. State, 1994 WL 590495 (Del.). *6 State v. Exum, 2002 WL 100576 , at *2 (Del.Super.), affirmed, 2002 WL 2017230 , at *1 (Del.). *7 Affidavit of Trial Counsel in response to Perez’s Rule 61 motion, at pg. 2. however, a number o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Stritzinger
neutral
1 sentence2024Dec. 11, 2000); and then quoting State v. Milligan, 116 A.3d 1232, 1237 (Del. 2015) (explaining that “the phlebotomist is not a required chain of custody witness for the introduction of blood results in a DUI trial, and is not needed to ‘show the authenticity of the sample, or the accuracy of the testing device’”); Guilfoil v. State, 135 A.3d 78 (Del. 2016) (TABLE) (admitting BAC test results without live testimony from one of the transporters of same). 88 See 21 Del. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lefebvre v. State
green
2 sentences2022By consequence, the BAC test that followed his arrest is not fruit of an illegal seizure. 34 See, e.g., Bease, 884 A.2d at 499–500 (holding that commission of traffic offense, odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, rapid speech, and defendant's admission to drinking alcohol were sufficient to establish probable cause); Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930–31(holding that alcoholic odor, admitted alcohol consumption, and defendant's dazed appearance constituted probable cause). 35 Lefebvre, 19 A.3d at 295 . 12 CONCLUSION Probable cause supported Speicher’s arrest and subsequent intoxilyzer test. 2022By consequence, the BAC test that followed his arrest is not fruit of an illegal seizure. 34 See, e.g., Bease, 884 A.2d at 499–500 (holding that commission of traffic offense, odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, rapid speech, and defendant's admission to drinking alcohol were sufficient to establish probable cause); Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930–31(holding that alcoholic odor, admitted alcohol consumption, and defendant's dazed appearance constituted probable cause). 35 Lefebvre, 19 A.3d at 295 . 12 CONCLUSION Probable cause supported Speicher’s arrest and subsequent intoxilyzer test. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences2022By consequence, the BAC test that followed his arrest is not fruit of an illegal seizure. 34 See, e.g., Bease, 884 A.2d at 499–500 (holding that commission of traffic offense, odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, rapid speech, and defendant's admission to drinking alcohol were sufficient to establish probable cause); Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930–31(holding that alcoholic odor, admitted alcohol consumption, and defendant's dazed appearance constituted probable cause). 35 Lefebvre, 19 A.3d at 295 . 12 CONCLUSION Probable cause supported Speicher’s arrest and subsequent intoxilyzer test. 2022By consequence, the BAC test that followed his arrest is not fruit of an illegal seizure. 34 See, e.g., Bease, 884 A.2d at 499–500 (holding that commission of traffic offense, odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, rapid speech, and defendant's admission to drinking alcohol were sufficient to establish probable cause); Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930–31(holding that alcoholic odor, admitted alcohol consumption, and defendant's dazed appearance constituted probable cause). 35 Lefebvre, 19 A.3d at 295 . 12 CONCLUSION Probable cause supported Speicher’s arrest and subsequent intoxilyzer test. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bease v. State
green
2 sentences2022By consequence, the BAC test that followed his arrest is not fruit of an illegal seizure. 34 See, e.g., Bease, 884 A.2d at 499–500 (holding that commission of traffic offense, odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, rapid speech, and defendant's admission to drinking alcohol were sufficient to establish probable cause); Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930–31(holding that alcoholic odor, admitted alcohol consumption, and defendant's dazed appearance constituted probable cause). 35 Lefebvre, 19 A.3d at 295 . 12 CONCLUSION Probable cause supported Speicher’s arrest and subsequent intoxilyzer test. 2022By consequence, the BAC test that followed his arrest is not fruit of an illegal seizure. 34 See, e.g., Bease, 884 A.2d at 499–500 (holding that commission of traffic offense, odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, rapid speech, and defendant's admission to drinking alcohol were sufficient to establish probable cause); Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930–31(holding that alcoholic odor, admitted alcohol consumption, and defendant's dazed appearance constituted probable cause). 35 Lefebvre, 19 A.3d at 295 . 12 CONCLUSION Probable cause supported Speicher’s arrest and subsequent intoxilyzer test. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Day v. State
green
1 sentence2020There were several BAC test strips, *5 See, Mills v. State, 2016 WL 97494, at *3 (Del.); Day v. State, 2011 WL 3617797 (Del.) (claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion was waived when defendant voluntarily entered his guilty plea, since voluntary guilty plea waives any claims of error occurring prior to the entry of the plea); Hickman v. State, 1994 WL 590495 (Del.). *6 State v. Exum, 2002 WL 100576 , at *2 (Del.Super.), affirmed, 2002 WL 2017230 , at *1 (Del.). *7 Affidavit of Trial Counsel in response to Perez’s Rule 61 motion, at pg. 2. however, a number o | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lewis v. State
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 1355-56 Thus, Lewis turns on the issue of the timing of alcohol consumption, not the timing of the BAC test. 1998Id. at 1355-56 Thus, Lewis turns on the issue of the timing of alcohol consumption, not the timing of the BAC test. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Brank v. State
green
2 sentences1998In Brank v. State, Del.Supr., 528 A.2d 1185 (1987) we again had occasion to address the presumptive effect of the BAC test. 1998In Brank v. State, Del.Supr., 528 A.2d 1185 (1987) we again had occasion to address the presumptive effect of the BAC test. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Smith v. State Roads Commission & State Accident Fund
green
2 sentences1988Appellant refers the Court to Smith v. Roads Commission, 240 Md. 525 , 214 A.2d 792 (1965), in support of this position. 1988Appellant refers the Court to Smith v. Roads Commission, 240 Md. 525 , 214 A.2d 792 (1965), in support of this position. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.