 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bransford v. State4/30/1998
APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS OF DONA ANA COUNTY AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTY Robert E. Robles and Eugenio S. Mathis, District Judges
{1} These two cases have been consolidated at the request of the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) because they both address foundational requirements for breath and blood alcohol tests in drivers' license revocation proceedings conducted pursuant to the Implied Consent Act, NMSA 1978, 66-8-105 to -110 (1978, as amended through 1993). The issue common to both cases is whether the State, in offering these test results into evidence in license revocation proceedings, may lay the necessary foundation for those test results by a means other than live testimony. We hold that the State may do so, and we affirm the district court in both instances.
{2} We address first Jaramillo v. State of New Mexico, Taxation & Revenue Department which concerns the foundation for the results of breathalyzer tests when an issue is raised regarding the reliability or validity of the test results by a challenge to the calibration of the testing instrument. We next address Bransford v. State of New Mexico, Taxation & Revenue Department which concerns the foundation for admission of blood test results in license revocation proceedings.
JARAMILLO
{3} On August 6, 1995, Jaramillo was stopped for failure to dim his headlights. The officer smelled alcohol, and Jaramillo admitted he had consumed some beer. He had slurred speech and blood-shot eyes; he was not able to understand the officer's instructions; and he was not able successfully to complete a field sobriety test. The officer believed that Jaramillo was driving while intoxicated and arrested him. Jaramillo subsequently consented to a breathalyzer test, see 66-8-107, which produced results of .21, .20 and .22. MVD served Jaramillo with a notice of revocation under the Implied Consent Act. See NMSA 1978, 66-8-111.1 (1993) (requiring written notice of revocation and right to a hearing).
{4} At the October 3, 1996 license revocation hearing, the officer testified that he had administered the breath test to Jaramillo. Although the officer was certified to administer such a test, he was not the key operator, nor was he the person who calibrated the breathalyzer machine. Jaramillo objected to the lack of any foundation showing that the breathalyzer test result was accurate and reliable or that the machine had been properly calibrated.
{5} The officer was the sole live witness. He testified that he obtained the breath test results from a log book located in the office within the police department where the breathalyzer machine was kept. The log book entries were admitted into evidence. The officer recognized his sergeant's signature on the log book, and he identified his sergeant as the person who performed the calibration functions on the breathalyzer machine, stating "that's what tells us they have been checked by our supervisor." The log book entries show that Jaramillo's breathalyzer test was performed on August 6, 1995 with the indicated results. The log book further indicates that a "self-test" was performed on August 1, 1995, within seven days of Jaramillo's test. The log book does not explain what a "self-test" is or how it demonstrates proper calibration of the machine. The officer did not offer any explanation of the "self-test" or even any testimony that the machine appeared to be operating correctly on the day of Jaramillo's test.
{6} Without any direct evidence of calibration, the hearing officer nonetheless took "administrative notice" that the breathalyzer machine had been checked for calibration because that was provided for in the regulations of the scientif
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|