Opinion ID: 2312839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Blood-alcohol Presumption

Text: The court instructed the jury as follows: Now, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the laboratory analysis used in this case ... was valid, that the test was administered properly, that the test results were accurate and trustworthy, and that at the time of the test sample being collected there was .10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the Defendant's blood, then you are permitted under the law to infer that the Defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time the test sample was collected. Because the law is concerned about the level of alcohol in the Defendant's blood at the time he may have been operating the vehicle, you may make the inference that the Defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the alleged operation only if the State is able to show through the use of expert testimony that the test results relate back to the actual time of alleged operation. No objection was made to this portion of the charge, [3] but defendant claims it was plain error because no reasonable juror could have found on the record that defendant's BAC was .10 or more at the time of operation. The State chemist testified that in his opinion defendant's BAC at the time of operation was.14. In order to convert a breath sample reading to BAC, the chemist used a blood-to-breath ratio of 2100:1 (For every twenty-one hundred parts of alcohol in the blood, there is one in breath.). The 2100:1 ratio is the conversion ratio provided for in the Health Department regulations and is an average. On cross-examination, the chemist conceded that the ratio varied from 1375:1 to 3000:1 in individual cases. No evidence was elicited showing the incidence of various ratios along this scale. [4] Nor was there evidence of the physical characteristics of people at either end of the scale. Defendant demonstrates that if he actually fell at the low end of the scale (at 1375:1), his BAC in this case would have been .09. Defendant, citing V.R.E. 303(c), maintains that the State did not meet its burden to establish by sufficient evidence the existence of the basic fact (the BAC), necessary to support the presumption that he was under the influence of alcohol. We disagree. The State need not, in every DUI prosecution relying on a breath test, reinvent the wheel by demonstrating the soundness of the procedures for calculating the BAC of the accused. The legislature authorized the Department of Health to select methods of analysis which shall be considered valid if properly performed. 23 V.S.A. § 1203(a). See State v. Mills, 133 Vt. 15, 16-17, 328 A.2d 410, 411 (1974). Attacks on the scientific underpinnings of the ratio are open to the defense, but it is for the jury, under proper instructions, to resolve those issues. See State v. Rollins, 141 Vt. 105, 112, 444 A.2d 884, 888 (1982). The jury was instructed on the presumption in accordance with defendant's request to charge. We find no error. Affirmed.