Matthies v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 300
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Matthies was convicted of DUI, first offense, after a breath test at the Madison police station showed BAC over .08%.
- The Intoxilyzer 8000 calibration certificates stated the machine was in working condition and accurate; the calibrator did not testify.
- Officer Craft stopped Matthies for speeding, observed odor of alcohol and red eyes, and Matthies admitted consuming several beers.
- Matthies’ trial included the calibration certificates admitted over Confrontation Clause objections; the circuit court upheld admission.
- The court analyzed Crawford and Melendez-Diaz, concluding calibration records are non-testimonial and admissible without the calibrator’s live testimony, affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Confrontation Clause require testimony of the intoxilyzer calibrator? | Matthies argues calibrator must testify under Confrontation Clause. | State contends calibration records are non-testimonial and need not have the calibrator testify. | Calibration records are non-testimonial; no requirement for calibrator testimony. |
| Application of Melendez-Diaz to calibration certificates post-Crawford | Melendez-Diaz requires analyst testimony for certificates. | Calibration certificates are routine maintenance records; not testimonial. | Calibration certificates are non-testimonial; Melendez-Diaz does not compel testimonial testimony here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (testimony required for forensic certificates prepared for trial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation unless unavailable and opportunity to cross-examine)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (nontestimonial statements fall outside Confrontation Clause)
- Harkins v. State, 735 So.2d 317 (Miss. 1999) (no Confrontation Clause violation for calibration certificates without calibrator testimony)
- Zoerner v. State, 725 So.2d 811 (Miss. 1998) (calibration records considered non-testimonial)
- Ramirez v. State, 928 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (courts split on Melendez-Diaz applicability to calibration certificates; rationale supports non-testimonial classification)