Summary
In State v. Popeleski, 291 Conn. 769, 970 A.2d 108 (2009), our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's determination that the defendant's claim that the horizontal gaze nystagmus test had not been performed in accordance with the traffic safety administration's standards pertained to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Summary of this case from State v. WeedOpinion
(SC 18250)
Argued January 8, 2009
officially released May 26, 2009
Two part substitute information charging the defendant, in the first part, with the crimes of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, reckless driving and evading responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle, and, in the second part, with having previously been convicted of two counts of the crime of operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, geographical area number twelve, and tried to the jury before Olear, J.; after the court denied the defendant's motion in limine to preclude the admission of certain tests administered to him, and his motion to strike testimony concerning those tests, verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed. Affirmed.
James J. Ruane, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, were James O. Ruane and Teresa M. Dinardi, special public defenders, for the appellant (defendant).
Ronald G. Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Anthony J. Spinella, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).