Court Opinion

ID: 9531047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:06:54.64278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:19.846039
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I fully concur with the majority’s adoption and adaptation of the Smith test as fair and as consistent with both the spirit and letter of I.C. § 18-8002.
I do question the majority’s application of the third prong of the Smith test — that is, proving the delay would not cause the outcome of the test to be materially affected. By pointing to the language in State v. Turner, 94 Idaho 548, 494 P.2d 146 (1972), and State v. Sutliff, 97 Idaho 523, 547 P.2d 1128 (1976), both at trial and on appeal, Pangburn has met the burden of proving that requirement. Although I recognize the need to discourage people from delaying taking the breath tests so that the results are altered, I see no need to require defendants, some of them perhaps indigent, to prove by expert testimony that which this Court has already recognized to be true. If the prosecution wishes to rebut the information in Turner and Sutliff and thereby rebut a defendant’s prima facie case, it may produce expert testimony on the point.
Finally, apart from whether Pangburn had met the requirements of the Smith test, it was unfair for the police to initially tell Pangburn that he may, on further reflection during the allotted sixty minutes, *143decide to let the test be administered, only to then deny him that opportunity.
In conclusion, although this justice heartily embraces the Smith test, he cannot concur in the affirmance of Pangburn’s conviction.