People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d 136 (1986)
An Intoxilyzer test result, even if labeled a ‘deficient sample,’ is admissible as evidence of intoxication if the prosecution establishes a proper foundation demonstrating the instrument’s accuracy and the test’s proper administration; any deficiency in the sample goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of Intoxilyzer test results in a DWI case where the sample was labeled ‘deficient.’ The court held that a ‘deficient sample’ reading is admissible, provided a proper foundation is laid, including testimony about the instrument’s reliability and the proper administration of the test. The court reasoned that any irregularity in the sample’s quality affects the weight of the evidence, which is a matter for the jury to decide, rather than the admissibility itself. The court reinstated the conviction for driving with more than .10% alcohol in the blood.
Facts
The defendant was arrested after a high-speed car chase. He exhibited signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, dazed behavior, and failure to pass sobriety tests. A breath test using an Intoxilyzer 5000 was administered. The first test yielded no reading. The second test produced a reading of .217, accompanied by the message “deficient sample — value printed was highest obtained.” The defendant sought to suppress the Intoxilyzer result.
Procedural History
The trial court determined the sample irregularity affected the weight, not admissibility, and the jury convicted the defendant of driving while intoxicated. The Appellate Term modified the judgment, vacating the conviction under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2) (driving with more than .10% alcohol) and dismissing that count, while affirming the remaining convictions. Both the People and the defendant appealed.
Issue(s)
1. Whether an Intoxilyzer test result indicating a “deficient sample” is admissible as evidence of a driver’s blood alcohol content in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated.
2. Whether evidence, apart from the Intoxilyzer results, was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant was driving while intoxicated under the common-law standard.
Holding
1. Yes, because a ‘deficient sample’ reading is admissible if a proper foundation is established showing the instrument’s accuracy and proper administration of the test; the deficiency affects the weight of the evidence, not admissibility.
2. Yes, because the other evidence presented was legally sufficient to establish that defendant was driving while intoxicated under the common-law standard.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the testimony of the officer administering the test and the Technical Supervisor of Central Testing. The court highlighted that the Intoxilyzer measures the rate of change in alcohol content, detecting both ‘mouth alcohol’ and the presence of ‘deep lung air,’ which provides the most accurate reading. A ‘deficient sample’ in Intoxilyzer terminology does not mean an invalid sample, but rather one where the subject didn’t breathe long enough to reach sufficient deep lung air.
The technicians testified that a full sample invariably yields a reading equal to or higher than a deficient sample. The Intoxilyzer is calibrated to give a result 10% lower than the true reading, benefiting the subject. Based on this uncontradicted testimony, and testimony that the Intoxilyzer was in proper working condition and properly administered, the court found the People established a sufficient foundation for the evidence’s reception. The court stated, “Once it was received, the jury was entitled to credit it to determine that defendant was driving with more than .10% alcohol in his blood in violation of section 1192 (2).”
Regarding the cross-appeal, the court found sufficient evidence, apart from the Intoxilyzer results, to establish common-law intoxication.