State of Tennessee v. Pascasio Martinez
E2016-01401-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- In Aug. 2014 KPD stopped Pascasio Martinez after observing an SUV initially without headlights; officer detected alcohol odor and observed poor performance on field sobriety tests.
- Martinez was arrested and consented to a blood draw at a hospital; officer transported sealed blood vials to the police station and placed them in a locked confiscation box.
- TBI received the samples days later from KPD, an evidence technician logged and stored them, and a TBI toxicologist tested the samples and reported a BAC of .168%.
- A jury convicted Martinez of two counts of DUI and two counts of DUI (fourth offense) based on the blood test plus evidence of three prior DUI convictions (two certified Davidson County judgments and an official driver record listing a Rutherford County DUI).
- Trial court merged convictions and imposed a two-year sentence with 150 days mandatory; Martinez appealed raising (1) chain-of-custody challenge to the blood test, (2) Confrontation Clause challenge to use of the official driver record/certification, and (3) sufficiency of the driver record to prove the Rutherford County prior.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Martinez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of blood-test results — chain of custody | Testimony from the arresting officer and the TBI analyst plus TBI file notes reasonably assured identity/integrity; State need not call every handler | Chain broken because no testimony about handling at the police station after officer placed samples in confiscation box and no testimony from TBI evidence technician | Admission proper — facts and TBI file provided sufficient chain of custody; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Use of official driver record and its certification — Confrontation Clause | Driving records and their certifications are non‑testimonial public records created by ministerial duty and not prepared for prosecution | Record and its certification were testimonial (prepared for litigation) so admission violated right to confront witnesses | No violation — driving records and certifications are not testimonial; Confrontation Clause claim rejected |
| Sufficiency of official driver record to prove prior DUI | Statute makes certified computer printout of official driver record prima facie evidence of prior convictions; defendant waived written challenge by not timely moving for inspection | Driver record entry was cryptic and did not say "conviction" or "guilty," so insufficient to prove prior DUI | Sufficient — statutorily authorized driver record established the Rutherford County prior and Martinez waived procedural challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cannon, 254 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2008) (chain-of-custody standard and admission discretion)
- State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746 (Tenn. 2000) (chain-of-custody purpose: guard against tampering/substitution)
- State v. Hutchison, 482 S.W.3d 893 (Tenn. 2016) (Confrontation Clause testimonial analysis; primary-purpose test)
- State v. Clever, 70 S.W.3d 771 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (other means to prove prior convictions besides certified judgment)
- State v. Baker, 842 S.W.2d 261 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (official driver records fit within public-records hearsay exception)
- Leibel v. State, 838 N.W.2d 286 (Neb. 2013) (driving records are non-testimonial)
- United States v. Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (certification of public records not testimonial)
- United States v. Ellis, 460 F.3d 920 (7th Cir. 2006) (similar reasoning on non‑testimonial certifications)