The State then proceeded to show that insofar as the State Board of Health was concerned the methods and regulations duly adopted by said Board were presented and admitted based upon a certification from Dr. Ira Myers, State Health Officer. This was proper. Patton v. City of Decatur, Ala., 337 So.2d 321; Weaver v. City of Birmingham, Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 99. A proper predicate, however, also requires that the officer administering the Photoelectric Intoximeter Test testify that he, too, has been duly authorized and licensed to administer such test, and also that the machine on which such test is to be given has been properly examined and found to be in good working order.

The Court of Criminal Appeals, following the rule of law laid down in Bush, held that the rules and regulations of the State Board of Health that were admitted into evidence as City's Exhibit 3 were admissible in this case. In reaching this conclusion, the Court discussed the rule of law set out in Patton v. City of Decatur, 337 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1976); Weaver v. City of Birmingham, 340 So.2d 99 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), overruled on other grounds, Estes v. State, 358 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977), cert. den., 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978); and Elmore v. State, 348 So.2d 265 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), rev'd in part, 348 So.2d 269 (Ala. 1977), but distinguished those cases, as follows: "Although City's Exhibit 3 in the present case did not comply with the requirements for a 'certificate' and thus cannot be considered a duly authenticated copy of the Board of Health regulations, its admission did not constitute reversible error.

"In Holloway v. City of Birmingham, 56 Ala. App. 545, 323 So.2d 726 (1975), this court refused to even consider the assertion of the defendant that the city failed to lay a proper predicate prior to the admission of an intoximeter test because the court was firmly of the opinion that the defendant's intoxicated condition at the time of the accident was fully proved by the testimony of two police officers who observed the accident and talked to the defendant immediately afterward. In Weaver v. City of Birminghan, Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 99, 102 (1976), this court rejected this position under the particular facts because the evidence of intoxication was not as strong. However in this case the evidence of intoxication is so extensive and comprehensive that any other conclusion requires a forced and strained construction, if not utter disregard of the facts.

Prior opinions construing the requirement in DUI cases that the blood alcohol tests be performed according to methods approved by the Board of Health have mandated that it be shown that the regulations were "duly adopted" or "certified" by the Board of Health. See Patton v. City of Decatur, 337 So.2d 321, 324, 325 (Ala. 1976) ("It would be a simple matter to proffer a duly certified and authenticated copy of methods or regulations duly adopted or approved by the State Board of Health."); Weaver v. City of Birmingham, 340 So.2d 99, 101 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976), overruled on other grounds by Estes v. State, 358 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 1057 (Ala. 1978) ("[N]owhere in the record is there [a] duly certified and authenticated copy of the methods or regulations duly adopted by the Alabama State Board of Health for the operation . . . of the photoelectric intoximeter. Patton v. City of Decatur, 1976, Ala., 337 So.2d 321, makes this an absolute requirement as part of the predicate to be laid. . . ."); Elmore v. State, 348 So.2d 265 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976), affirmedas to instant issue, 348 So.2d 269 (Ala. 1977).

Appellant attempts to support his contention by the following authorities only: "Patton v. City of Decatur, Ala.Cr.App., 337 So.2d 321 (1976); Pugh v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 343 So.2d 793 (1977), cert. denied [Ala.Cr.App.] 343 So.2d 795 (1977) and Weaver v. City of Birmingham, Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 99 (1976)." In each of the cases cited, the appellant had been convicted of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The fact that the test operator was an expert or was duly certified provides no basis for any presumption that the test was correctly performed. Patton, supra; Weaver v. City of Birmingham, Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 99 (1976). While it was unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to a chemical test in order to make out a prima facie case of vehicular homicide, Patton, 337 So.2d at 324, the results of the test played an extremely important part in the state's burden of proving the requisite degree of reckless and wanton conduct necessary to support a conviction for murder in the second degree.

Such introduction over defendant's objection was error. Myrick v. City of Montgomery, 54 Ala. App. 5, 304 So.2d 247 (2); Patton v. City of Decatur, Ala., 337 So.2d 321; Weaver v. City of Birmingham, Ala. Cr.App., 340 So.2d 99. In Weaver, we were dealing with a State prosecution for driving while intoxicated.