The accused brought a directed verdict motion arguing that the presumption of accuracy under s. 320.31 of the Criminal Code could not apply because there was no express evidence from an analyst regarding the target value of the alcohol standard used in the calibration check.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the breath technician's evidence of her expected target value based on her training, combined with the analyst's certificate stating the standard was suitable for use, was sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to apply the presumption.
