CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Forensic Issues
.........Criminal
............Intoxication; Drugs
11 Cards On This Topic:

Because it is not specifically listed in any H&S Code schedule, evidence of MDMA's chemical name, standing alone, is insufficient to prove the material is a controlled substance.

No requirement that would condition admissibility of sheriff's forensic lab report re driver's BAC on formal certification or subscription.

Although expert could not opine on the amount of marijuana D had smoked, testimony was sufficient to establish D was impaired.

Presumption DMV blood tests were properly conducted may not be overcome by showing a violation of governing regulations having only a tenuous connection to the accuracy of the results.

Forensic blood test report inadmissible where first analyst claimed to have performed it before sample arrived and analyst trainee not supervised during 2d test.

Experienced officer may give opinion that D possessed rock cocaine for purposes of sale based on quantity of drug possessed.

Officer properly testified that person appeared to be "obviously intoxicated."

Police officer with extensive narcotics experience qualified to express opinion as to whether person under influence; medical personnel not required.

Layman may give opinion, based upon own observations, as to whether another is intoxicated.

Criminalist's use of probability extrapolation to find weight of seized cocaine not new scientific theory and proper for courtroom use.

Results of all chemical DUI tests must be sworn under VC 23158.2.