Matthies v. State, 85 So. 3d 838

Matthies was DUI defendant; intoxilyzer calibration certificates were admitted without live calibration-officer testimony.
Court considered whether calibration records are testimonial under Confrontation Clause and Mississippi Constitution.
Calibration certificates stated the device was tested and calibrated to acceptable standards; signed by the calibrator who did not testify.
Trial evidence included the calibrations and the officer’s testimony about Matthies’s BAC; defense offered expert medical testimony on impairment.
Court of Appeals relied on Melendez-Diaz and other jurisdictions to deem calibration records non-testimonial.
Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding intoxilyzer calibration records are non-testimonial and do not violate Confrontation Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are intoxilyzer calibration records testimonial?	Matthies argues calibration records are testimonial	State argues records are non-testimonial	Calibration records are non-testimonial

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial vs non-testimonial framework)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certificates of analysis testimonial; confrontation required)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S.—, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic report testimonial; defender testimony required)
Harkins v. State, 735 So.2d 317 (Miss. 1999) (calibration certificates not generally Confrontation violation)
Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237 (Miss. 1990) (calibration of intoxilyzer foundational to admission)