Chambers v. State, 2012 Ark. 407

Appellant was convicted of DWI and following too close after a 2010 traffic stop where an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech were observed.
Beck administered two BAC Data-master tests at the police department, yielding .105 and .108.
Appellant moved for discovery to cross-examine BAC-related personnel under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-206(d)(2).
At trial, the court admitted Officer Beck’s Operator and Instrument Certificates certifying the Data-master; the printout of the breathalyzer results was admitted too.
Appellant argued the certificates were testimonial and violated the Confrontation Clause under Melendez-Diaz; the circuit court overruled objections and admitted the evidence.
The court convicted Appellant; the Court of Appeals affirmed; this court granted review to address Confrontation Clause implications of the certificates.
On appeal, the court held the calibration certificates were non-testimonial and admissible, and that the State had no duty to produce the calibrator under the amended statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are calibration/certification certificates testimonial evidence?	Chambers contends certificates are testimonial under Melendez-Diaz.	State contends certificates are non-testimonial and admissible under §5-65-206(d)(1)(A).	Certificates are non-testimonial; Confrontation Clause not violated.
Did the amendment to §5-65-206(d) alter the prosecution’s duty to produce calibrators?	Appellant relied on Johnson/Smith to argue State must produce calibrators upon notice.	State argued amendment removed that duty; no automatic production requirement.	Amendment eliminates that duty; no reversal based on Calibrator non-appearance.
May the breathalyzer test results be admitted if the operator was cross-examined at trial?	Melendez-Diaz requires live testimony from analysts; cross-examination does not cure testimonial certificates.	Operator Beck testified; results could be admitted if not testimonial.	Issue abandoned; court treated as resolved by non-testimonial nature of certificates and testing under statute.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 2009) (testimony-concerning forensic certificates may be testimonial)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court, 2011) (scientific reports require analyst testimony; certification alone not always admissible)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 2004) (Confrontation Clause rights to confront witnesses)
Johnson v. State, 17 Ark. App. 82 (1986) (calibration witnesses under prior statute; defense notice mattered)
Smith v. State, 301 Ark. 569 (1990) (statutory framework for cross-examining calibration/certification witnesses)
Grisby v. State, 370 Ark. 66 (2007) (arguments not raised on appeal are considered abandoned)
Zeininger, Commonwealth v. Zeininger, 459 Mass. 775 (Mass. 2011) (OAT certifications largely non-testimonial; attenuated evidentiary function)
State v. Bergin, 231 Or. App. 36, 217 P.3d 1087 (Or.App. 2009) (breathalyzer maintenance/certification records treated as non-testimonial)
Crawford v. Washington, 380 U.S. 400 (Note: duplicate cite) (landmark Confrontation Clause framework)