State v. Davis.
400 P.3d 453
| Haw. | 2017Background
- Raymond S. Davis was charged with OVUII for a .139 g/210L breath result measured by an Intoxilyzer 8000; he pled not guilty and had a bench trial.
- The State offered two Intoxilyzer Supervisor’s Sworn Statements (calibration printouts with a signed boilerplate by supervisor Woo Kang saying the machine was "operating accurately") to prove the machine was in proper working order; Kang did not testify.
- Defense objected on hearsay, lack of foundation, and that the statements mixed raw machine data with evaluative conclusions; the State sought admission under HRE 803(b)(8) (public records) and alternatively HRE 803(b)(6) (business records).
- The district court admitted the Sworn Statements and the Operator Statement showing Davis’s test result; the court found the three Thompson foundational prerequisites satisfied and convicted Davis.
- The ICA affirmed, treating the Sworn Statements as self-authenticating public records under HRE 803(b)(8) and 902(4); Davis sought certiorari to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held the Sworn Statements were inadmissible under HRE 803(b)(8) because the supervisor’s statement that the Intoxilyzer was "operating accurately" was an evaluative expert conclusion, not a simple "matter observed," and therefore could not be used to establish the required foundation for admitting the breath test result; the conviction was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Intoxilyzer Supervisor’s Sworn Statements are admissible under HRE 803(b)(8) (public records) | Sworn Statements are public records/data compilations kept by HPD that show the instrument was operating accurately and are self‑authenticating and admissible | The statements are hearsay, mix raw data with evaluative conclusions, lack foundation (no testimony on reference samples/targets), and thus are inadmissible | Held: Not admissible under HRE 803(b)(8); supervisor’s conclusion is an evaluative opinion, not a "matter observed" |
| Whether the Sworn Statements may be admitted under HRE 803(b)(6) (business records) despite HRE 803(b)(8) exclusion | Alternatively, business‑records exception permits admission | Public records exception governs and preempts business‑records route; cannot circumvent 803(b)(8) | Held: Not admissible under HRE 803(b)(6) because public‑records rule is exclusive for such government records |
| Whether the admission of the Sworn Statements supplied the necessary Thompson foundational showing (machine working, qualified operator, proper administration) for the breath result | Sworn Statements establish the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order, satisfying Thompson foundation | Because the evaluative conclusion was inadmissible, the State failed to lay the required foundation | Held: Because calibration conclusion inadmissible and no other evidence of calibration compliance was presented, Thompson foundation was not met; breath result inadmissible |
| Whether administrative‑revocation statutes or prior case law (e.g., Ofa) mandate a different evidentiary result | Administrative rules allow sworn supervisor statements in civil revocation proceedings; Ofa and other jurisdictions treated similar records as admissible under public‑records exception | Civil administrative process tolerates relaxed procedures; criminal trials require stricter evidentiary safeguards | Held: Administrative concession does not control criminal evidentiary rules; Ofa is distinguishable/dicta and does not alter the result |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 72 Haw. 262, 814 P.2d 393 (1991) (establishes foundational prerequisites for admitting an Intoxilyzer breath test result)
- State v. Jhun, [citation="83 Hawai'i 472, 927 P.2d 1355"] (1996) (standards of appellate review for evidentiary rulings and discussion of public records exception)
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988) (federal public‑records exception discussion: "factual findings" may include conclusions from investigations)
- Baker v. Elcona Homes Corp., 588 F.2d 551 (6th Cir. 1978) (distinguishes "matters observed" from evaluative "factual findings" in public records exception analysis)
- State v. Ofa, 9 Haw.App. 130, 828 P.2d 813 (1992) (ICA decision admitting Intoxilyzer log as public record; treated as persuasive but not controlling in this case)