State v. Davis

140 Haw. 252 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was arrested and tried for the offense of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII). Officer Maeshiro, testified that he stopped D’s car after observing D weave in and out of marked lanes without using his blinkers or hand signals. D had red, bloodshot, glassy eyes and spoke with an apparent slight slur. He asked D to complete a field sobriety test after smelling the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the interior of the car. D stipulated that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop D and probable cause to arrest him for OVUII. Officer Chaney testified that she transported D from the location of the stop to the Kalihi police station. D elected to take a breath test. Chaney turned on the Intoxilyzer 8000. P asked whether 'based on Officer Chaney's training and experience in operating the Intoxilyzer 8000,' the instrument 'appeared to be operating properly and accurately on the date in question.' P showed to defense counsel two Intoxilyzer 8000 Accuracy Test Supervisor's Sworn Statements, dated February 29, 2012, and March 16, 2012 (Sworn Statements 1 and 2, respectively). P asked no questions of Officer Chaney regarding Sworn Statements 1 and 2. P informed the court that Sworn Statements 1 and 2 'showed that the instrument was working properly' and that it sought to admit the documents into evidence as proof of the Intoxilyzer's condition and accuracy. The top half of each form contained machine printouts with time stamps. The bottom contained an attestation from Woo Kang who is identified as the Intoxilyzer supervisor. He swore that the Intoxilyzer was operating accurately in compliance with the State of Hawaii Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title Eleven, Chapter 114-7, on the date indicated below, when I conducted the accuracy-test recorded on this document. P contended that there was sufficient legal basis under Rule 803(b)(8) for the admission of Sworn Statements 1 and 2 into evidence because they were public records made in the course of a regularly conducted activity. P maintained that the district court did not need to look at the data printout set forth in Sworn Statements 1 and 2 to determine whether or not the device was operating accurately because Kang swore that the machine was operating accurately. The court admitted the evidence over D’s objection. The district court found D guilty of the offense charged and entered its Order and Notice of Entry of Order on November 29, 2012. D appealed. The appeals court ruled that the district court did not err by admitting Sworn Statements 1 and 2 into evidence because they were admissible as self-authenticating public records under Rules 803(b)(8) and 902(4). D appealed.