State v. Bernstein
234 Ariz. 89
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendants charged with aggravated DUI based on BAC results from Scottsdale Crime Laboratory (SCL) using a PerkinElmer Clarus 500 gas chromatograph (the "2003 Instrument"). Two vials drawn per defendant; only one vial tested by SCL; no independent testing results in the record.
- SCL testing process: calibration, autosampler runs many vials (including controls and replicates), chromatogram output, technical and administrative reviews; protocol requires replicate agreement within ±5%.
- Superior Court held 17 days of evidentiary hearings and issued a Minute Entry excluding SCL BAC test results under Ariz. R. Evid. 702(d), finding principles/methods not reliably applied.
- State petitioned for special action; Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction, stayed the cases, and reviewed whether SCL BAC results meet Ariz. R. Evid. 702 (amended 2012 to mirror Fed. R. Evid. 702).
- The appellate court found SCL BAC methodology (gas chromatography) generally accepted, SCL accredited (ASCLD/LAB-International; ISO/IEC 17025:2005 compliance by Dec 2010), and the record contained no evidence that the specific defendants’ BAC results were inaccurate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special-action jurisdiction | State: no adequate appeal remedy; issue of statewide importance | Defendants: exclusion was fact/credibility-based, not legal, so special action inappropriate | Court accepted special action jurisdiction (issue is legal, statewide) |
| Admissibility under Ariz. R. Evid. 702(a)/(b) (helpfulness; sufficient facts/data) | SCL criminalists’ expertise and data will assist trier of fact; testing based on sufficient data | Defendants contested lab practices and data sufficiency | Court: State met preponderance standard; 702(a) and (b) satisfied |
| Admissibility under Ariz. R. Evid. 702(c) (reliable principles/methods) | Gas chromatography is tested, peer-reviewed, generally accepted; SCL follows standards and controls | Defendants pointed to lab flaws and ISO noncompliance concerns | Court: 702(c) satisfied (Daubert factors support reliability) |
| Admissibility under Ariz. R. Evid. 702(d) (reliable application to facts) | State: no proof specific test results were inaccurate; lack of independent testing by defendants irrelevant to State’s burden | Defendants: lab anomalies, instrument failures, and noncompliance with ISO/ASCLD undermine reliable application; some instrument failures occurred during runs with defendants’ samples | Court: 702(d) satisfied — record showed no inaccuracy in the specific defendants’ BAC results; Minute Entry excluding results was vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes Daubert factors and gatekeeping for scientific evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony; factors flexible)
- State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (discusses standards/controls as a Daubert factor)
- Ariz. State Hosp. v. Klein, 231 Ariz. 467 (App. 2013) (Arizona courts apply Fed. R. Evid. 702 guidance; federal decisions persuasive)
- State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555 (credibility is for jury, not gatekeeping ruling on admissibility)