Court Opinion

ID: 9523776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:46:49.323636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:39.732158
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring in part, concurring in result in part).
I concur in the result on Issue 1, necessity for extrapolation of blood tests. The issue before us is the necessity where the charge is driving under the influence, SDCL 32-23-1(2). I disagree with the statements in footnote 2 that it is unnecessary for extrapolation by the expert witness in prosecutions under the .10 charge, SDCL 32-23-1(1). The majority opinion has noted that the state chemist, testifying as the expert, said that he was unable to state with reasonable scientific certainty that McDonald had .10 or more percent alcohol in her blood at the time she was driving. Are we then to turn the jury loose to do the extrapolation that an expert cannot do? Because I feel that any reference to prosecutions under SDCL 32-23-1(1) is obiter dicta, I merely concur in the result as to disposition of the prosecution before us under SDCL 32-23-1(2).
I concur with the disposition of Issue 2 on jury instructions.