State v. Kandutsch
Annotate this Case
Gregg Kandutsch was convicted for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. The evidence was based in large part upon inference from a report generated by an electronic monitoring device (EMD) that Kandutsch was wearing. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding (1) neither the EMD itself nor the report derived from it was so unusually complex or esoteric that expert testimony was required to lay a foundation for the admission of the report into evidence, and the testimony of two Department of Corrections (DOC) agents was sufficient to provide a foundation for the report's accuracy and reliability; and (2) a computer-generated report is not hearsay when it is the result of an automated process free from human input or intervention.
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.