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 administratively; he appealed, administrative hearing sustained revocation, and he then sought de novo review in district court.
- At trial DPS sought to admit a manufacturer’s Certificate of Calibration for the Intoxilyzer 8000 (dated 2009) and a supplier’s Certificate of Analysis for the reference gas canister (dated Feb. 2012); Muratore objected as hearsay.
- The trial court excluded both certificates (not public records or properly foundationed business records) and found the Board of Tests had not adopted maintenance rules for the Intoxilyzer 8000; the court 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 excluded certificates were inadmissible and irrelevant to device condition at the time of the test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of manufacturer’s calibration certificate | Certificate is hearsay and not admissible | Certificate is public/business record and admissible | Excluded — not a public record of the Board and DPS failed to lay business-record foundation |
| Admissibility of supplier’s certificate of analysis (gas) | Hearsay; unreliable foundation | Admissible under public/business records exceptions | Excluded — created by third parties; lacked custodian testimony/certification |
| Relevance of certificates to device condition at time of test | Old certificates don’t prove device condition at arrest | Certificates show calibration/ gas quality and bear on validity | Not relevant — calibration (2009) and gas analysis (Feb 2012) do not prove functionality at April 2012 test |
| Sufficiency of DPS proof to sustain revocation | DPS failed to prove test on properly maintained device and offered inconsistent affidavit evidence | DPS relied on breath results and officer affidavit to meet burden | DPS failed burden — inaccuracies in affidavit and lack of Board-prescribed maintenance procedures justified vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Westerman v. State, 525 P.2d 1359 (Okla. Crim. 1974) (Board rules on maintenance required to assure breath test accuracy)
- Smith v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 680 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1984) (standard that revocation appeal will be affirmed if any evidence supports trial court)
- Kerr v. Clary, 37 P.3d 841 (Okla. 2001) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Clark v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 153 P.3d 77 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (maintenance log for Intoxilyzer 5000 admissible under public records in that factual context)
- Derrick v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 164 P.3d 250 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (DPS burden to prove test on properly maintained device)
- Taylor v. State, 248 P.3d 362 (Okla. Crim. 2011) (Confrontation Clause / testimonial hearsay framework)
- Depuy v. Hoeme, 775 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1989) (finality of judgments)