MURATORE v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2014 OK 3
Okla.2014Background
- On April 21–22, 2012 Mark Muratore was arrested for DUI and voluntarily submitted to breath testing on an Intoxilyzer 8000; two breath samples read .11 g/210L.
- DPS revoked Muratore’s license and an administrative hearing sustained the revocation; Muratore appealed to district court.
- At trial DPS sought to admit (1) a manufacturer’s Certificate of Calibration for the Intoxilyzer 8000 (dated March 26, 2009) and (2) a supplier’s Certificate of Analysis for the reference gas canister (dated Feb. 10, 2012); Muratore objected as hearsay.
- The trial court excluded those certificates, found the Board of Tests had no implemented maintenance rules/procedures for the Intoxilyzer 8000, and vacated the revocation.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the trial court, holding DPS failed to prove the device was properly maintained and the certificates were inadmissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of manufacturer’s calibration certificate and supplier’s analysis (hearsay) | Certificates are hearsay and inadmissible; no public-official provenance or foundation for business-records exception | Certificates admissible under public records exception as part of Board of Tests’ regularly kept records and/or as business records | Excluded: not public records (created by third parties) and DPS failed to lay business-records foundation; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Relevance of certificates to device condition at time of test | Even if valid, old calibration/analysis do not prove device/gas condition at time of Muratore’s test | Certificates show device and gas were compliant and reliable | Not relevant as proof of condition years/months later; trial court properly excluded them |
| Sufficiency of DPS proof to sustain revocation | DPS must prove by preponderance all elements including valid test on properly maintained device; Muratore argues DPS failed that burden | DPS relied on test results and offered certificates/bench check to prove maintenance and validity | DPS failed threshold burden: inaccuracies in officer affidavit + lack of board-adopted maintenance rules support vacatur of revocation |
| Applicability of Confrontation Clause analysis (as to certificates) | N/A (not raised below) | COCA suggested certificates non-testimonial and thus acceptable under Confrontation Clause | Confrontation Clause inapplicable to this civil administrative appeal; even if nontestimonial, hearsay rules independently control admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Westerman v. State, 525 P.2d 1359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974) (board rules on breathalyzer maintenance are required; failure invalidates tests)
- Taylor v. State, 248 P.3d 362 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (Confrontation Clause: testimonial hearsay requires confrontation)
- Clark v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 153 P.3d 77 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (Intoxilyzer 5000 maintenance log admitted under public-records exception where state officer performed maintenance)
- Derrick v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 164 P.3d 250 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (DPS bears burden in district court to prove valid test on properly maintained device)
- Smith v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 680 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1984) (standard for appellate review of revocation findings)
- Kerr v. Clary, 37 P.3d 841 (Okla. 2001) (admission of hearsay under exceptions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Appeal of Dungan, 681 P.2d 750 (Okla. 1984) (district-court de novo review in revocation appeals)
- Cornett v. Carr, 302 P.3d 769 (Okla. 2013) (finality of judgments; prospective application note in opinion)