Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

201 N.W.2d 710

Docket No. 55245.

State v. Williams

STATE of Iowa, Appellee. v. James Whitridge WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 18, 1972.

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 1972-10-18

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2003

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this state while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time of the act alleged as shown by a chemical analysis of his blood, breath, saliva or urine is admissible.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Stratmeier

Relies on State v. Hraha · Rodriguez v. Fulton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-10-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1P. F. Elgin, Indianola, and Gordon E. Allen, Des Moines, for appellant.

¶2Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and Robert Gottschald, County Atty., for appellee.

¶3Heard before MOORE, C. J., and UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON, HARRIS, and McCORMICK, JJ.

¶4HARRIS, Justice.

¶5Defendant appeals his conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Evidence of the results of a breath specimen test was admitted over defendant's timely objections at trial. The breath specimen had been obtained under a procedure intended to conform with the implied consent law. No blood test was offered. Under our holding in Rodriguez v. Fulton, 190 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1971) the breath test could be requested by the officer only after a blood test had first been offered and refused. Unless the proper procedure is followed evidence of such a breath test is inadmissible in criminal as well as civil cases. State v. Hraha, 193 N. W.2d 484 (Iowa 1972). We are bound under these authorities to reverse defendant's conviction.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

¶7MOORE, C. J., and REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.

¶8UHLENHOPP, J., concurs specially.

¶9UHLENHOPP, Justice (concurring).

¶10I adhere to the views I expressed in dissenting in Rodriguez v. Fulton, 190 N.W. 2d 417 (Iowa), and State v. Hraha, 193 N. W.2d 484 (Iowa). Those decisions are, however, the law, and I therefore concur in the present opinion.

/201/nw2d/710 · .json · Public domain