State v. Chiodo

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Chiodo

722 P.2d 58, 80 Or. App. 453, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3138

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 23, 1986

DocketM413166; CA A38138

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 722 P.2d 58 (State v. Chiodo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chiodo, 722 P.2d 58, 80 Or. App. 453, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3138 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, contending only that her motion to exclude any and all evidence concerning the “gaze nystagmus” test administered by a police officer at the scene of the stop should have been granted. That test was one of several that defendant was asked to perform and, because we conclude that the state was entitled to put on evidence of all of those tests, the motion was properly denied.

Whether the officer should have been permitted to testify that in every case when he had arrested a person based on the “gaze nystagmus” test and that person had later taken an intoxilizer test, the person had registered .10 percent or higher blood alcohol content is not before us, because that claim of error was not preserved in the trial court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, contending only that her motion to exclude any and all evidence concerning the “gaze nystagmus” test administered by a police officer at the scene of the stop should have been granted. That test was one of several that defendant was asked to perform and, because we conclude that the state was entitled to put on evidence of all of those tests, the motion was properly denied.

Whether the officer should have been permitted to testify that in every case when he had arrested a person based on the “gaze nystagmus” test and that person had later taken an intoxilizer test, the person had registered .10 percent or higher blood alcohol content is not before us, because that claim of error was not preserved in the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 P.2d 58, 80 Or. App. 453, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chiodo-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack