Opinion ID: 2106562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disposition in the Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court

Text: Anderson was charged with Driving Under the Influence, and his case proceeded to a bench trial in the Court of Common Pleas. At trial, the State sought to introduce the intoxilyzer results into evidence as part of its case-in-chief. To this end, the State demonstrated that the intoxilyzer had been tested and certified as working properly on November 14, 1994, thirteen days before Anderson's arrest and testing. The State also showed that the intoxilyzer was again tested and certified as working properly on December 14, 1994, eighteen days after Anderson's test. Anderson objected to this evidence on the ground that the two calibrations of the intoxilyzer device had not occurred within a thirty-day period. To support his assertion that the test results were inadmissible, Anderson relied on a Superior Court bench ruling issued in the case of State v. Peck, Del.Super., Cr.A. No. 93-070290A (Sept. 1, 1993). Anderson's contention was that Peck required calibrations within thirty days in order for the evidence to be admissible. This contention was rejected by the Court of Common Pleas which held that the intoxilyzer need not be calibrated every thirty days, but must be calibrated within reasonable temporal proximity of the defendant's test. The Superior Court, sitting as an intermediate appellate court, affirmed Anderson's conviction but disapproved of the Court of Common Pleas' holding that calibration of the intoxilyzer within a reasonable time of the defendant's test was sufficient.