Therefore, our task is one of interpretation. See, U.S. v. Brannon, 146 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir.1998); State v. Mazzuca, 132 Idaho 868, 979 P.2d 1226 (Idaho App.1999); State v. DeMarasse, 85 N.Y.2d 842, 623 N.Y.S.2d 845, 647 N.E.2d 1353 (1995); State v. Conrad, 187 W.Va. 658, 421 S.E.2d 41 (1992); State v. Wilkinson, 181 W.Va. 126, 381 S.E.2d 241 (1989); Williams v. District of Columbia, 558 A.2d 344 (D.C.1989).In reading a penal statute, a court must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense.
In the District of Columbia, “before expert testimony about a new scientific principle [may] be admitted, the testing methodology must have become ‘sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” Williams v. District of Columbia, 558 A.2d 344, 346 (D.C.1989) (quoting Frye, 54 App.D.C. at 47, 293 F. at 1014). The “issue is consensus versus controversy over a particular technique, not its validity.”
We have already rejected one interpretation of § 40-716(b)(1) that would produce an "absurd result." Williams v. District of Columbia, 558 A.2d 344, 345 (D.C. 1989) ( per se offense does not require proof that breath test used sample of 2,000 cubic centimeters of breath, despite statutory reference to "equivalent quantity [10 percent or more of alcohol] . . . contained in at least 2,000 cubic centimeters of . . . breath"). Requiring measurement of the blood alcohol level at the precise time of driving would be equally absurd.
The State need not independently prove the scientific reliability of the test as part of its prima facie case. See Gardner, 1998-NMCA-160, ¶ 9 (holding that results of breath tests taken under the ICA may be admitted into evidence if "the tests [are] taken in accordance with department of health regulations"); see also Woods v. State, 593 So.2d 103, 105-06 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991) (holding breath test properly admitted when prosecution showed compliance with regulations of state board of heath regarding test; trial court did not err in refusing to allow defense to cross-examine officer about internal workings of machine); State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Tenn. 1992) (testing officer need not be able to explain scientific validity of breath test results if he can testify that test was conducted according to regulations); cf. Williams v. Dist. of Columbia, 558 A.2d 344, 346 (D.C. 1989) (holding that prosecution did not have to show breath testing admissible under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923), after legislature endorsed breath testing). The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling sub silentio Defendant's challenge to the admission of his breath test results based on failure to satisfy Daubert and Alberico.