Court Opinion

ID: 9594774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:32:52.456547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:25.895247
License: Public Domain

Benton, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting.
Although I would reverse the conviction because I believe that the instruction was improper, see Davis v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 291, 302-05, 381 S.E.2d 11, 17-19 (1989) (Benton, J., dissenting), I agree with the majority that the evidence proved that the Intoximeter 3000 was a device that performed “a chemical test,” Code § 18.2-266, or “chemical analysis of a person’s breath,” Code § 18.2-268.9, as statutorily permitted.