Summary
In State v. Chiodo, 80 Or. App. 453, 722 P.2d 58, rev den 302 Or. 461 (1986), defendant raised, by pretrial motion to exclude evidence, the admissibility of the HGN test.
Summary of this case from State v. ReedOpinion
M413166; CA A38138
Argued and submitted June 27, 1986.
Affirmed July 23, 1986. Reconsideration denied December 5, 1986. Petition for review denied December 30, 1986 ( 302 Or. 461).
Appeal from District Court, Multnomah County, Thomas L. Moultrie, Judge.
Darcia Krause, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Richardson and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, contending only that her motion to exclude any and all evidence concerning the "gaze nystagmus" test administered by a police officer at the scene of the stop should have been granted. That test was one of several that defendant was asked to perform and, because we conclude that the state was entitled to put on evidence of all of those tests, the motion was properly denied.
Whether the officer should have been permitted to testify that in every case when he had arrested a person based on the "gaze nystagmus" test and that person had later taken an intoxilizer test, the person had registered .10 percent or higher blood alcohol content is not before us, because that claim of error was not preserved in the trial court.
Affirmed.