Commonwealth v. Zeininger, 459 Mass. 775

Zeininger was convicted of OUI in Greenfield; breathalyzer readings were 0.10% on two samples.
Maintenance and annual certification of breathalyzer machines are performed by the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) under regulatory scheme.
OAT certification records (notes on machine certification and diagnostic tests) appear on the breathalyzer results report during prosecutions.
Zeininger challenged the admission of OAT certification records as hearsay and claimed confrontation clause violation.
The court held the OAT certification records admissible as business records and not testimonial under the confrontation clause.
Key regulatory procedures include 15-minute observation before testing and periodic calibration, with expert testimony about machine function.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are OAT certification records admissible as business records?	Zeininger contends records are not business records due to opinion content.	Commonwealth argues records are produced in regular course as official maintenance data.	Yes, admissible as business records.
Do OAT certification records violate the confrontation clause by being testimonial?	Zeininger asserts records are testimonial and require live testimony.	OAT records are non-testimonial and not subject to confrontation.	No confrontation clause violation; records are non-testimonial.
Was Officer Rice's testimony about machine functioning properly permissible as expert testimony?	Zeininger argues it was improper without formal qualification findings.	Officer Rice possessed requisite specialization as an instructor and operator; testimony admissible.	Yes, permissible expert testimony.
Was the fifteen-minute observation requirement substantial deviation or admissibility issue?	Zeininger contends observation period was not met, undermining validity of results.	No substantial deviation; testimony supports compliance.	No substantial deviation; breathalyzer results admissible.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2009) (testimony must be confronted when testimonial certificates are used)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial evidence triggers confrontation right)
Commonwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (Mass. 2008) (hearsay and confrontation analysis framework)
Commonwealth v. Burgess, 450 Mass. 422 (Mass. 2008) (confrontation analysis in Massachusetts context)
Commonwealth v. Barbeau, 411 Mass. 782 (Mass. 1992) (breathalyzer device certification standards)
Commonwealth v. Slavski, 245 Mass. 405 (Mass. 1923) (public/offical records vs. ordinary hearsay distinction)
Commonwealth v. Durning, 406 Mass. 485 (Mass. 1990) (weight and admissibility of breathalyzer evidence framework)