New York Law Review

Tag: Foundation Requirements

  • People v. Campbell, 69 N.Y.2d 482 (1987): Foundation Required for Blood Alcohol Test Results from DuPont ACA

    People v. Campbell, 69 N.Y.2d 482 (1987)

    Blood alcohol test results obtained from a DuPont Automatic Clinical Analyzer (ACA) are not admissible per se; the prosecution must lay a proper foundation establishing the accuracy and reliability of the machine for blood alcohol content testing, specifically demonstrating its accuracy within the standard of 0.01 grams per 100 milliliters.

    Summary

    This case clarifies the evidentiary foundation required for admitting blood alcohol test results obtained from a DuPont Automatic Clinical Analyzer (ACA) in DWI cases. The Court of Appeals held that such results are not admissible per se simply because they were generated in a hospital laboratory. The prosecution must establish the ACA’s accuracy and reliability for determining blood alcohol content within the legally required precision. The court emphasized that a State Health Department permit for the hospital does not automatically guarantee the machine’s accuracy for forensic blood alcohol testing.

    Facts

    Defendants were charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI) under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2). Blood samples were taken from the defendants and analyzed at Jamestown General Hospital, a state-permitted facility, using a DuPont Automatic Clinical Analyzer (ACA). The tests were performed by certified hospital technologists. The ACA is a spectrophotometer using reagent packs to determine blood alcohol content. The technologists were trained to operate the machine but lacked advanced degrees in chemistry.

    Procedural History

    Defendants were convicted in various Justice Courts of Chautauqua County. County Court reversed these convictions and dismissed the informations, holding that the blood alcohol test results were inadmissible without a proper foundation. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether blood alcohol test results from a DuPont Automatic Clinical Analyzer are admissible in evidence per se, or whether the People must lay a foundation establishing the accuracy and reliability of the machine under the standards articulated in People v. Mertz and People v. Freeland.

    Holding

    No, the blood alcohol test results are not admissible per se because the People failed to establish that the DuPont ACA machine used was sufficiently accurate and reliable for forensic blood alcohol testing to meet the state’s accuracy standard of 0.01 grams per 100 milliliters.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals distinguished between the general reliability of hospital tests for medical purposes and the specific accuracy required for forensic blood alcohol testing in criminal cases. The court referenced People v. Mertz, which requires establishing the accuracy of a breathalyzer before its results are admissible. The Court stated that the State regulations require blood alcohol readings to be accurate within 0.01 grams per 100 milliliters. The court noted that the People did not present any scientific evidence establishing the reliability of the DuPont ACA for determining blood alcohol content within that standard, and that, in fact, evidence suggested the ACA’s manufacturer-set range exceeded this standard. The Court rejected the argument that the technologists’ certifications or the hospital’s permit were sufficient to establish the machine’s accuracy. The Court emphasized that the technologist could not be considered an expert able to attest to the machine’s specific accuracy: “the technologist… does not qualify as an expert on the internal workings of the machine and his or her testimony does not satisfy the distinct foundational requirement that the machine test blood alcohol content accurately within required specifications”. Citing People v. Freeland, the court emphasized the need to show that the machine is capable of accurately discerning the distinction between legal and illegal blood alcohol content.

  • People v. Kennedy, 68 N.Y.2d 569 (1986): Business Records Exception Requires Proof of Systematic Record-Keeping

    People v. Kennedy, 68 N.Y.2d 569 (1986)

    To admit records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, a party must establish that the record was made in the regular course of business, it was the regular course of business to make such records, and the record was made at or near the time of the event being recorded.

    Summary

    Kennedy, a police officer, was convicted of conspiracy and criminal usury based on evidence suggesting he was a silent partner in a loansharking operation. The prosecution introduced pocket diaries as business records of the usurer, supported by expert testimony interpreting the entries. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a proper foundation for admitting the diaries under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because there was insufficient evidence that the records were systematically maintained or created as part of a regular business practice. The court emphasized that the statute requires proof of a routine, habitual, and systematic record-making process to ensure trustworthiness.

    Facts

    Frank DiMare borrowed money from Thomas Manuli, also a police officer, at usurious interest rates. The People alleged that Kennedy, another police officer, was Manuli’s silent partner, providing the cash for the loans and receiving a percentage of the usurious payments. The prosecution’s evidence included DiMare’s testimony, admissions from Kennedy, bank records, recorded conversations, and two pocket diaries seized from Manuli’s apartment. These diaries contained cryptic entries of names, initials, and numbers. The People’s expert witness interpreted the entries as records of loans, payments, and expenses related to the usurious lending operation, linking Kennedy to the transactions.

    Procedural History

    Kennedy was convicted of conspiracy in the fourth degree and criminal usury in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that the People failed to lay a sufficient foundation for the admission of the diaries. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the prosecution established a sufficient foundation to admit the pocket diaries as business records under CPLR 4518(a), thereby satisfying an exception to the hearsay rule.

    Holding

    No, because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the diaries were made in the regular course of business, that it was the regular course of business to make such records, and that the records were made at or near the time of the event being recorded.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the business records exception, codified in CPLR 4518(a), could theoretically apply to records of a criminal enterprise if proper foundation is established. The court emphasized that the statute requires proof that the record was made in the regular course of business, that it was the regular course of such business to make the record, and that the record was made at or about the time of the event. The Court found that the expert testimony, while opining that the diaries were the type of records kept in a usury business, failed to establish the regularity and systematic nature of the record-keeping. Specifically, the expert’s cross-examination revealed that each usurer maintains records in their own style, and the entries were sometimes predated, undermining the reliability and trustworthiness required for the business records exception. The Court stated, “More, however, is required by way of foundation than an expert’s view that, because usurers personally and cryptically maintain records of what is collected, paid and owed, two pocket diaries identified as a usurer’s record are ‘business records’ admissible in evidence against a third person for the truth of their contents.” The court underscored the importance of ensuring fairness to the accused, particularly in criminal cases, where the right to confrontation is constitutionally protected. Absent proof of systematic record-keeping, the diaries were inadmissible hearsay.