| [url]http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(z1yvki55p32rxgrgfvjrcdn2)/download.aspx?ID=76330[/url]
See State v. Jarwan, 2000 WL 33113846, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 8, 2000).
Some units have and some haven't - the burden of proof to show it is up to the party presenting the evidence - the prosecution in this case to follow the rules of evidence and provide foundation...
D.R.E. 702. See also Nelson v. State, Del. Supr., 628 A.2d 69, 73 (1993) (noting that the general acceptance test of Frye is not the sole criterion for assessing the admissibility of scientific test results or evidence); id. at 73-74 nn. 5-6 (holding that scientific evidence must satisfy the pertinent Delaware Rules of Evidence concerning admission of scientific testimony or evidence, i.e., D.R.E. 401, 402, 403, 702, and 703, and be relevant and reliable).
We hold that it was an abuse of discretion for the Superior Court to admit the HGN evidence without the proper foundation. Because the error was not harmless, we reverse the appellant's conviction for the June 25, 1995 incident and remand the case for a new trial. Consequently, we also set aside Zimmerman's sentence for the August 26, 1995 incident and remand the case for a new sentencing order consistent with his prior "offenses," as the term is herein defined, as of his original sentencing date, February 23, 1996.
__________________
_____________________________________________________
“[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
| 
05-07-2007, 10:48 PM
Linear Mode
