Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. George McGUFFEY
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-06-25
Citations: 316 So. 2d 107
Docket Number: No. 56362
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. George McGUFFEY.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 316
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. George McGUFFEY.
No. 56362.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 25, 1975.
Arthur H. Andrews, Baton Rouge, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
BARHAM, Justice.
The relator was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, a violation of La.R.S. 14:98, after a trial before a judge. Upon his application we granted writs to review the correctness of the trial court's ruling which allowed the State to introduce into evidence the results of a Photo-Electric In-toximeter Test administered to relator shortly after the alleged offense; the relator's position is that the introduction into evidence of the test results over his objection was error because the State did not introduce into evidence the permit of the operator who administered the test which is required under La.R.S. 32:663.
At the trial relator desired that the permit itself, the best evidence of the operator's possession of proper certification, be presented but agreed that he would settle for having the contents of the certificate read to him over the telephone by someone located wherever the permit could be found. Telephone calls were made to the Crime Laboratory and to police troop headquarters but only the operator's new certificate, one not pertinent to the time when the operator tested the relator, was located. The permit relevant to' the time when the relator's intoximeter test was administered was never located.
In brief the relator additionally argues that the State failed to show that the operator complied with guidelines and methods promulgated by the state department of health for the administration of the PEI test. However, relator did not advance this particular argument in the trial court and we, therefore, will not consider it. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 841.
Because we have found that the failure to physically produce the operator's certification or permit evidencing his qualifications and authority to administer the PEI test is error warranting the reversal of a conviction and sentence in State v. Jones, La., 316 So.2d 100, decided this date, we are constrained to reach a conforming result in the instant case for the reasons fully set forth in the Jones opinion, and because, in the instant case, the evidence acceptable to relator in lieu of strict adherence to the best evidence rule was not produced.
The relator's conviction is hereby reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.