Commonwealth v. Dyarman
73 A.3d 565
Pa.2013Background
- Corporal Patterson stopped appellant for DUI; she was taken to the DUI booking station where Officer Gsell administered a breath test.
- BAC was .117%, leading to two DUI charges under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1) and (b).
- at trial, Commonwealth sought to admit calibration and accuracy certificates for the breath-testing device without live testing testimony.
- Appellant objected under the Confrontation Clause, arguing certificates were testimonial because the tester did not testify.
- Trial court admitted the certificates; appellant was convicted on both counts.
- Superior Court affirmed, concluding certificates were non-testimonial and admissible to show device reliability and chain of custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability | Appellant | Appellant | No Sixth Amendment violation; certificates non-testimonial |
| Whether Melendez-Diaz controls given non-case-specific testing | Melendez-Diaz applies because certificates resemble affidavits | Distinguishable since not proving an element or case-specific testimony | Distinguishable; not testimonial under framework |
| Primary purpose test application to calibration/accuracy records | Records should be testimonial under primary purpose to prove device reliability | Primary purpose is device reliability, not establishing guilt of a targeted individual | Records are non-testimonial under primary purpose analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial when meant to prove facts)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes confrontation right for testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary purpose test for non-core statements)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic report as testimonial under confrontation rights)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (plurality refines primary purpose test; distinction among reports)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (reiterates primary purpose framework for statements to police)