State of Maine v. Chad H. Tozier
115 A.3d 1240
Me.2015Background
- On Aug. 19, 2012, a certified officer used an Intoxilyzer to test Chad H. Tozier and recorded 0.18 g per 210 L of breath; Tozier was charged with criminal OUI.
- Tozier sent a 10-day notice under 29-A M.R.S. § 2431(2)(D) requesting the State produce a "qualified witness" to testify to matters covered by the breath-test certificate.
- At trial the State produced only the officer who operated the Intoxilyzer; no independent expert was produced.
- Tozier moved in limine to exclude the Intoxilyzer result; the trial court granted the motion, finding the officer was not qualified to testify about equipment/chemical quality.
- The State appealed; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed statutory interpretation and Confrontation Clause issues and vacated the exclusion order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2431(2)(D) requires the State to produce an expert "qualified witness" to admit Intoxilyzer results when defendant demands one | Tozier: "qualified witness" means an expert who can testify about machine functioning, chemicals, and conversion to blood-alcohol | State: "qualified witness" need not be an expert; operator/officer who administered test suffices; § 2431(2)(K) shows experts are not required | Court: "qualified witness" does not require an expert; the officer who administered the test satisfied § 2431(2)(D) so long as §§ H and I foundational proof is offered |
| Whether Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming Confrontation Clause precedent requires production of an expert for machine-generated breath results | Tozier: Confrontation Clause entitles cross-examination on the scientific basis of results; machine output is the functional equivalent of an analyst's report, so an expert must testify | State: Intoxilyzer produces machine-generated output rather than human forensic analysis; risk of manipulation that concerned Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming is not present; the administering officer is the relevant witness | Court: Confrontation Clause satisfied by live testimony of the operator who administered the test; expert on internal machine workings is not constitutionally required |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (certificates of analysis are testimonial; authors must be available for confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (admission of analyst’s report requires testimony of the certifying analyst; substitute testimony insufficient)
- State v. Kennedy, 788 A.2d 174 (Me. 2002) (officer who administered breath test need not issue certificate for admission if available to testify and addresses § 2431 elements)
- State v. Lowden, 87 A.3d 694 (Me. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles applied de novo)