People v. Pealer, 20 N.Y.3d 447

In October 2008, police received an anonymous tip that a possibly intoxicated driver left a restaurant and was in a gray car with a rear window sticker; an officer observed a weaving Subaru and stopped it for a window-sticker violation.
The driver, Pealer, admitted drinking two beers after work; he showed signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests; a breath test yielded a BAC of .15%.
Pealer was indicted for felony DWI with prior felony DWI convictions after being arrested at the station following a breathalyzer test.
During trial, the People offered three documents about routine calibration/maintenance of the breathalyzer to prove the machine’s proper functioning; the documents were to be admitted via the officer who tested Pealer.
Pealer challenged the documents under the Confrontation Clause; the trial court admitted them; the jury convicted Pealer of DWI as a class D felony and related offenses.
The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the records were non-testimonial and did not implicate the Confrontation Clause; this Court granted leave to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether breathalyzer maintenance records are testimonial under Crawford	Pealer argues records implicate Confrontation Clause as testimonial	Pealer contends records were created to prove machine functioning, not to prosecute a person	Records are non-testimonial; Confrontation Clause not implicated
What framework governs whether such records are testimonial	Rawlins/Brown/Melendez-Diaz guide that such records may be testimonial if linked to crime	Records serve equipment maintenance purposes, not criminal accusation	Primary-purpose analysis supports non-testimonial determination
Are calibration/maintenance records admissible as business records	Records simply reflect objective maintenance facts	Records could be treated as testimonial; require cross-examination	Records fit within business-records exception and are non-testimonial
Does Melendez-Diaz require a different view of these records post-decision	Melendez-Diaz may alter precedent on testimonial evidence	Melendez-Diaz does not disturb ongoing non-testimonial treatment of such records	Melendez-Diaz does not change the analysis; records remain non-testimonial

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 2004) (establishes confrontation-clause framework for testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court, 2006) (distinguishes testimonial from nontestimonial statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) (primary-purpose framework for testimonial analysis)
People v. Rawlins, 10 N.Y.3d 136 (N.Y. Ct. App., 2008) (identifies factors for testimonial vs. non-testimonial in NY context)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 2009) (breathalyzer-like forensic certificates considered testimonial in some contexts)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. — (Supreme Court, 2011) (addresses forensic lab reports and testimonial nature)
People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332 (N.Y. Ct. App., 2009) (articulates factors analyzing endorsement of testimonial vs. non-testimonial records)