Opinion ID: 1894732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Specific Testing Procedures

Text: Adams appeals the admissibility of Riis' testimony not only on the basis of the alleged unreliability of the principle and technique, but also that Riis' testing procedures require a finding that the results are unreliable. Specifically, Adams claims that: 1. Riis engaged in an unscientific selection of known standard controls in that instead of using different known standards, he used the same known standard numerous times. Adams claims this results in skewed results. 2. Riis' actual test results were so inconclusive, that they could not be used validly for interpretation. 3. Riis did not make any effort to eliminate the possible effect of contaminants (such as dirt and pesticides). 4. Riis may have utilized impure/defective testing plates. The State responds that:

3. Contamination is not a factor because of the limited number of enzymes which could be affected. None of the tests on Adams' blood show any of the changes known to be characteristic of contamination. 4. The evidence which Adams alleges is supportive of impure or defective plates is slight and was refuted by the testimony of Riis and the State's other expert witness. Adams also questions the reliability of Riis as the interpreter of the results. He claims Riis followed procedures which did not include insuring that his interpretations and conclusions could be rechecked by himself or others. We agree with Adams that the procedures utilized by the person performing the relevant tests and the qualifications of that operator must meet certain basic standards. Proponents of the admissibility of scientific test results must show the reliability of the operator and the procedures. State v. Guthrie, 85 S.D. 228, 180 N.W.2d 143 (1970); State v. Spry, 87 S.D. 318, 207 N.W.2d 504, 510 (1973), overruled on other grounds State v. Buckingham, 90 S.D. 198, 240 N.W.2d 84 (1976); State v. Helmer, 278 N.W.2d 808, 812-813 (S.D.1979). We have examined the record in connection with each specific contention and are satisfied that the basic procedures were sufficiently followed to allow the admission of this evidence for the jury's determination of the weight it should be given.