Testimony challenged by the defence will be accepted as evidence in the trial of Jonathan Pratt,  charged with killing three young men while driving impaired in 2011.

Pratt’s lawyer had challenged whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds to get warrants to obtain a blood sample from Pratt after the collision.  

He also questioned whether evidence should be allowed showing his client’s apparent admission to an emergency medical technician that he was driving that night.

The judge ruled Monday the blood evidence showing Pratt was three times over the legal limit to drive was admissible.

“Well those were words that all of us wanted to hear so badly ... and the truth is we never had a doubt,” said Sheri Arsenault, the mother of one of the boys killed.

However, Pratt’s alleged admission to the EMT will be excluded from evidence as there was reasonable doubt about Pratt’s state of mind at the time.

Second driver argument challenged

Defence lawyer Timothy Dunlap had suggested someone else was driving that night, despite police testimony that only Pratt and the three dead men were found at the scene.

Prosecutor Gordon Hatch told court there is other evidence showing there was no "phantom driver,”  including no other footprints in the snow leading away from the site of the crash.

In his final arguments, Hatch told court that most of the DNA found in the pickup matched Pratt.

“As they said a few days ago ... the airbag can only deploy once so it's not like it had been deployed another time and then it was his DNA from that time months ago.”

Dunlap has decided Pratt won’t testify in his own defence.

Final arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, with a final decision expected by the end of the week.