People v. Pealer, 20 N.Y.3d 447 (2013)
Records pertaining to the routine inspection, maintenance, and calibration of breathalyzer machines are non-testimonial and therefore do not require the production of the persons who created the records under the Confrontation Clause.
Summary
Richard Pealer was arrested for felony DWI. During trial, the prosecution introduced documents related to the breathalyzer machine’s calibration and maintenance to prove its proper functioning. Pealer argued this violated his Confrontation Clause rights, as he couldn’t cross-examine the documents’ authors. The County Court admitted the documents, and the Appellate Division affirmed, deeming the documents non-accusatory and non-testimonial because they established the machine’s functionality, not directly Pealer’s guilt. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that routine breathalyzer calibration records are non-testimonial and thus not subject to Confrontation Clause requirements.
Facts
An anonymous tip led police to Richard Pealer, who was driving a gray car. An officer observed Pealer’s car weaving and stopped him for an illegal window sticker. Pealer admitted to having “two beers.” The officer noticed signs of intoxication: red and glossy eyes, impaired speech, and an odor of alcohol. Pealer failed field sobriety tests and a breath screening test. At the police station, after consulting a lawyer, Pealer took a breathalyzer test, which showed a blood alcohol content of .15%, nearly twice the legal limit. He had two prior felony DWI convictions.
Procedural History
Pealer was indicted for felony DWI. At trial, he objected to the admission of breathalyzer calibration and maintenance records, arguing a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The County Court overruled the objection, admitting the documents. The jury convicted Pealer. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the admission of breathalyzer calibration and maintenance records, without the opportunity to cross-examine the authors, violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
Holding
No, because documents pertaining to the routine inspection, maintenance, and calibration of breathalyzer machines are non-testimonial under Crawford v. Washington and its progeny, thus, the Confrontation Clause is not implicated.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the Supreme Court’s framework established in Crawford v. Washington, focusing on whether the statements are testimonial or non-testimonial. The court emphasized that “the basic objective of the Confrontation Clause … is to prevent the accused from being deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant about statements taken for use at trial” (Michigan v Bryant). The Court highlighted two key factors in determining whether a statement is testimonial: whether it was prepared like an ex parte examination and whether it accuses the defendant of criminal wrongdoing. The court distinguished this case from others where the Confrontation Clause applied, such as in People v. Pacer (affidavit of DMV employee attesting to license revocation) and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (affidavit identifying a substance as cocaine), because those documents directly linked the accused to the crime or established an element of the offense. The court analogized the breathalyzer records to autopsy reports or graphical DNA reports, which are considered non-testimonial because they don’t explicitly tie the accused to a crime without additional expert testimony.
The Court applied the factors from People v. Brown to assess the admissibility of the breathalyzer documents. These factors include: (1) whether the agency that produced the record is independent of law enforcement; (2) whether it reflects objective facts at the time of their recording; (3) whether the report has been biased in favor of law enforcement; and (4) whether the report accuses the defendant by directly linking him or her to the crime. While acknowledging the records contain certified declarations of fact attesting to the breathalyzer’s functionality, the Court emphasized the primary motivation for the testing was to ensure the machine’s proper calibration and operation, not to secure evidence for a particular criminal proceeding. The court also noted the testing was performed by an agency independent of law enforcement, and the records did not directly inculpate the defendant or prove an element of the charges. The court viewed these documents as business records, which are generally considered non-testimonial. The Court found that the breathalyzer calibration documents offered in this case were not testimonial in nature, even in light of Melendez-Diaz. The Court found a national consensus classifying such documents as non-testimonial. Therefore, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the records without allowing cross-examination of the authors.