Commonwealth v. Dyarman
33 A.3d 104
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- On November 28, 2009, Corporal Patterson stopped Appellant for suspected intoxication and arrested her.
- At the booking station, Officer Gsell administered a breath test showing BAC of 0.117%.
- Appellant was charged with two DUI counts: 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and § 3802(b).
- During a bench trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce calibration and accuracy logs for the Intox-ilyzer 5000 EN; Appellant objected under Melendez-Diaz as testimonial evidence.
- The trial court admitted the calibration logs; Appellant was convicted and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail plus fines.
- Appellant challenged the admission on appeal, arguing it violated the confrontation clause; the appellate court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether calibration logs violate confrontation rights. | Dyarman: logs are testimonial under Melendez-Diaz. | Commonwealth: logs are non-testimonial, admissible under hearsay/business records or § 1547. | Calibration logs not testimonial; admissible under hearsay/business records or § 1547. |
| Whether the logs were admissible without the technician who calibrated the device. | Dyarman: Six Amendment requires the calibrator to testify. | Commonwealth: chain-of-custody and accuracy established; not required to call calibrator. | Not required to call calibrator; logs admissible to establish device accuracy and chain of custody. |
| Whether admission of calibration logs infringes Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Melendez-Diaz/Barton-Martin. | Dyarman: logs are testimonial and compel confrontation. | Commonwealth: logs are non-testimonial and fall outside confrontation clause. | Logs are non-testimonial; no confrontation violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; requires confrontation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause and testimonial statements)
- Barton-Martin v. Commonwealth, 5 A.3d 363 (Pa. Super. 2010) (BAC evidence via lab report requires testimony to avoid confrontation issue)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (non-testimonial hearsay admissible under established exceptions)