There was a useful decision out of the court of appeals regarding toxicologist testimony and the foundation necessary for them to testify.
In State v. Millett the defendant was arguing that not having the scientist present that did some initial preliminary testing present and also not having the person that calibrated the equipment used to test violated the defendant's right to cross examination.
The toxicologist testified unequivocally that the preliminary testing would not have any impact on the confirmation tests, and therefore, would not impact the ultimate results. The Court of Appeals held that the lack of the two witnesses the defendant was demanding to cross examine would at best go to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility.
This is not a groundbreaking holding, but it is helpful if anyone encounters similar arguments we often get when defendants are challenging everything and the kitchen sink in DUI related cases. There is also some relevant case law for traffic stops and PC for arrest as well in the opinion.
You can read the full opinion here: State v Millett
