State v. Hon. Bernstein
Annotate this CaseThe real parties in interest here were eleven defendants charged with aggravated driving under the influence. The Scottsdale Crime Laboratory (SCL) tested each defendant’s blood for blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The defendants moved to exclude evidence of their BAC results under Ariz. R. Evid. 702, arguing that the instrument used by SCL to test their BAC had unresolved flaws that undermined its reliability. The trial court excluded evidence of the results as to all defendants, concluding that the State met its burden under Rule 702 for establishing the admissibility of the BAC results but that the State failed to show that the testing methodology had been reliably applied as required under the Rule 702(d). The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order excluding evidence of the BAC results, holding (1) a trial court should exclude evidence resulting from errors in application of a methodology only if the errors render the expert’s conclusions unreliable; otherwise, a jury should consider whether the expert properly applied the methodology in determining the weight or credibility of the expert testimony; and (2) the trial court in this case applied the wrong legal standard under Rule 702(d) and thereby abused its discretion in excluding the evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.