order and is administered by a qualified operator in
accordance with accepted procedures. See also State v.
Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 171 (1964); State v. Hardy, 281
N.J. Super. 251, 252 (App. Div. 1995).
Once reliability is established, further inquiry into
the reliability of the device is normally foreclosed. Thus,
for example, radar devices, see State v. Dantonio, 18 N.J.
570 (1955); State v. Cardone, 146 N.J. Super. 23 (App.
Div. 1976), and the breathalyzer, see Romano v.
Kimmelman, supra, have both been held to be
scientifically reliable.
With respect to breathalyzer evidence, the Supreme
Court, in State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504 (1987),
interpreted N.J.S.A. 39:4-50a, which makes it unlawful
for a person to operate “a motor vehicle... with a blood
alcohol concentration of 0.10% or more by weight of
alcohol in the [person’s] blood.” The Court concluded
that a defendant may be convicted under the statute
when a breathalyzer test that is administered within a
reasonable time after the defendant was actually driving
the vehicle reveals a blood-alcohol level of at least 0.10%.
The Court stated, “[I]t is the blood-alcohol level at the
time of the breathalyzer test that constitutes the essential
evidence of the offense.” Extrapolation evidence, where
the defendant attempts to show by expert testimony that
his blood-alcohol level, although registering 0.10% or
more when tested, was actually below that reading while
he was driving, was inadmissible. The Court reasoned
that a narrow or literal interpretation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-
50a, which would require a showing that the blood-
alcohol level was 0.10% while driving, would “frustrate
the fundamental regulatory goals underlying New
Jersey’s drunk driving laws.”
In State v. Downie, 117 N.J. 450 (1990), the
Supreme Court reinforced its judicial acknowledgement
of the reliability of breathalyzer evidence, holding that
the breathalyzer is “unsurpassed in its combined
practicality and usefulness.” Id. at 469.
In State v. Dohme, 229 N.J. Super. 49 (App. Div.
1988), the Appellate Division held that with respect to
the reliance on a certificate demonstrating that
breathalyzer ampoules were properly constituted, the
officer who inspected the machine or administered the
test could testify that the certificate relates to the same
batch of ampoules from which the ampoules were taken
that were used in the testing of the defendant and that
they can fairly say that such certificates are generally
relied on by experts in the field. While the court in State
v. Maure, 240 N.J. Super. 269, 285 (App. Div. 1990),
aff’d o.b., 123 N.J. 457 (1991), did not consider the
certificate to be an “indispensible prerequisite” to the
admission of breathalyzer readings, it did note that it was
the “preferred practice.”The use of an Automatic Clinical Analyzer (ACA) to
test the alcohol content of blood taken from the
defendant was approved in State v. Figueroa, 212 N.J.
Super. 343 (App. Div. 1986), certif. denied, 107 N.J. 142
(1987).Recently, a Law Division judge approved the
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test,
which records involuntary eye spasm indicative of alcohol
intoxication, as scientifically reliable. State v. Maida, 332
N.J. Super. 564 (Law Div. 2000). Maida also held that
a coordinator’s certificate was sufficient to prove the
accuracy of a breathalyzer. Id.; see also State v. Slinger, 281
N.J. Super. 538, 542 (App. Div. 1995). In State v.
Doriguzzi, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2000),
however, decided after Maida, the Appellate Division
declined to take judicial notice of the general acceptance
of HGN testing in the scientific community, after a
review of authoritative, scientific and legal writings, and
judicial opinions from other jurisdictions. The Court
stated that its survey of relevant caselaw “does not provide
us with the level of certainty necessary to approve HGN
testing for future cases.”Statistical probability evidence is not necessary for
the admission of expert testimony concerning the
similarity of the composition of lead bullets taken from a
murder victim’s body. State v. Noel, 157 N.J. 141
(1997). The lack of such evidence only goes to the
weight, and not the admissibility, of the expert
testimony.The reliability of laser speed detectors was addressed
in Matter of LTI Speed Detec. System, 314 N.J. Super. 233
(Law Div. 1998), aff’d sub nom., State v. Abeskaron, 326
N.J. Super. 110 (App. Div. 1999), certif. den, 163 N.J.
394 (2000). Speed readings produced by such detectors
may be generally admitted as evidence, subject to certain
restrictions as to distance and weather, without the
necessity of expert testimony in individual prosecutions,
so long as the officer operating the device received
appropriate training and that relevant pre-operational
checking procedures were satisfied. Id.While Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) serological
testing resulting in a finding of the probability of
paternity is recognized in the scientific community, its