People v. Kenney

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Krulikowski

    60 Mich. App. 28 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Krulikowski, 60 Mich. App. 28, 33; 230 N.W.2d 290 (1975), this Court stated that a failure to adduce evidence of the foundational requirements "precludes the admission of the test results into evidence, and does not go merely to the weight which the trier of fact may accord the test results" (emphasis in original).

    54 Mich App at 509, fn 2. Further corroboration of this view may be found in People v Kenney, 354 Mich. 191; 92 N.W.2d 335 (1958), in which the defendant was issued a traffic ticket after police officers determined his speed by use of a "speedwatch". While approving the admission into evidence of the speedwatch results, the court stated:

  2. People v. Barbara

    400 Mich. 352 (Mich. 1977)   Cited 139 times
    In People v Barbara, 400 Mich. 352, 364; 255 N.W.2d 171 (1977), this Court held that the results of a polygraph examination are not admissible at trial.

    People v Morse, 325 Mich. 270, 274; 38 N.W.2d 322 (1949). Compare, People v Kenney, 354 Mich. 191, 196; 92 N.W.2d 335 (1958), where evidence of a speedwatch was admitted when defendant offered no evidence that the instrument was mechanically and scientifically inaccurate. We have not required infallibility, but only that "reasonable certainty" follow from "such tests".

  3. People v. Young

    106 Mich. App. 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 11 times
    In Young, supra, this Court determined that electrophoresis results, testified to by a Michigan State Police forensic serologist, were admissible.

    Barbara, supra, 380, 383, 404. Although the Barbara Court stated that it had applied the Davis/Frye rule in the past to the admission of scientific testimony where the jury was asked to determine the accuracy of scientific devices "in the face of a difference of scientific opinion as to their accuracy", see People v Morse, 325 Mich. 270, 274; 38 N.W.2d 322 (1949), it also indicated that it had not applied the strict Davis/Frye rule in People v Kenney, 354 Mich. 191, 196; 92 N.W.2d 335 (1958), "where evidence of a speedwatch was admitted when defendant offered no evidence that the instrument was mechanically and scientifically inaccurate". Barbara, supra, 365.

  4. People v. Hachem

    282 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)

    Evidence from a speedometer is duly accepted in traffic cases. People v Kenney, 354 Mich. 191, 197; 92 N.W.2d 335 (1958). While speedometers are not inherently accurate, they have acquired a certain reliance factor with the public in general.

  5. People v. Blondia

    69 Mich. App. 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 9 times
    In People v Blondia, 69 Mich. App. 554; 245 N.W.2d 130 (1976), this Court reversed for an instruction similar to that in Hunter, supra, on the assumption that jurors who had been invited to discuss the testimony during trial in fact did so.

    He also used a stop watch to test the VASCAR unit but he did not have anything to offer on the accuracy of the stop watch except that it was not a certified stop watch as prescribed in the manufacturer's instructions on the use of the VASCAR unit. In People v Kenney, 354 Mich. 191, 196; 92 N.W.2d 335 (1958), the court allowed the results of a scientific instrument used for measuring the speed of a motor vehicle into evidence where: "[I]t was shown by testimony that the instrument was properly set up, was checked before using by the officers operating it, where it was shown that constant periodical checks were made by experts to determine whether or not the instrument was operating correctly, and where the officer operating the instrument observed the speeding vehicle and testified as to his estimation of the vehicle's speed * * *."

  6. People v. Tobey

    60 Mich. App. 420 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    Proof of a scientific or mechanical instrument's accuracy and proper use is a requisite for the admission of the results derived from such devices. People v Kenney, 354 Mich. 191; 92 N.W.2d 335 (1958). In the case at bar, the voiceprint operators admitted that the machine used was never checked until "nothing came out".

  7. People v. Zimmerman

    385 Mich. 417 (Mich. 1971)   Cited 18 times

    "Is there general scientific recognition that the breath test applied by the Harger Drunkometer will afford an accurate index of the alcoholic content of the blood?" People v. Kenney (1958), 354 Mich. 191, 195, 196, permitting admission of the speedwatch: "The particular method used in the operation of the speedwatch apparently is not as complicated as radar methods, and because of its simplicity has been adopted by numerous law-enforcement bodies.