They did not specifically relate to the ability of the actual DMT machines used in defendants’ cases to meet the performance standards promulgated by the DOH at the time their breath-alcohol was measured, as required by statute to establish the admissibility of the evidence at trial. See 23 V.S.A. § 1203(d) (providing that test results are “valid” if performed according to DOH performance standards); State v. Rolfe, 166 Vt. 1, 11-12, 686 A.2d 949, 956-57 (1996) (interpreting term “valid” in § 1203(d) to establish threshold of admissibility of test into evidence). In other words, defendants’ allegations did not contest the foundational facts justifying admission of the test results; their arguments went solely to the weight of the evidence. See Rolfe, 166 Vt. at 3, 686 A.2d at 952 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 15. Because defendants’ allegations were
recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results and state left questions about how probationers diabetes affected the results holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is holding the fact of hypnosis if disclosed to the jury may affect the credibility of evidence but not its admissibility holding that frye test for admissibility was satisfied because expert used likelihood ratios to explain results of dna tests conducted on known mixed samples holding that defendant may contest foundational facts but not otherwise challenge admissibility of test results