STATE v. HOVET
2016 OK CR 26
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Matthew Hovet charged with DUI (47 O.S. § 11-902) after a breath test; trial court granted motion to suppress the breath-test results.
- Trial court concluded Board of Tests rules and policies were not properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and suppressed the evidence.
- State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(5), arguing (1) the Board materials were valid under the APA and (2) the State need not prove proper APA promulgation to admit test results in a criminal prosecution.
- Record indicates both parties agreed published Board rules existed and that law enforcement followed those rules in administering the test; Hovet did not challenge compliance with the published rules.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals treated the APA-validity challenge as a civil matter and held criminal proceedings need only show compliance with existing Board rules, not that the rulemaking process complied with the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove Board rules were properly promulgated under the APA before admitting breath-test results | State: No; admissibility requires only proof of compliance with existing Board rules | Hovet: Yes; if rules were not properly promulgated under the APA, evidence is inadmissible | Court: Held for State — APA-validity challenges belong in civil court; criminal admissibility requires only compliance with existing Board rules |
| Whether Board resolutions/policies can be used to establish compliance with testing procedures | State: Such written policies/interpretations that are consistent with published rules may be considered | Hovet: Policies not properly promulgated cannot support admissibility | Court: Policies/interpretations consistent with rules may be used to assess compliance; weight not implicated when compliance shown |
| Whether lack of published rules (or improper promulgation) renders tests inadmissible | State: Tests admissible if compliance with published rules shown | Hovet: Improper promulgation or unpublished rules invalidate tests | Court: If no published rules exist, State cannot prove compliance; but where published rules exist and compliance shown, test is admissible |
| Proper forum to challenge rulemaking procedures of the Board | State: Such challenges are civil actions under the APA | Hovet: Challenge can inform criminal evidentiary admissibility | Court: Challenge must be litigated in civil court; criminal courts decide only compliance with existing rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Westerman v. State, 525 P.2d 1359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974) (State must show testing complied with Board regulations for admissibility)
- Bemo v. State, 298 P.3d 1190 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (Board written policy statements/interpretations consistent with rules may be used to determine compliance)
- Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (errors in testing affect weight, not admissibility, when procedures generally followed)
- Feeken v. State, 371 P.3d 1124 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (appellate review under § 1053 appropriate where suppression impairs prosecution)
- Neloms v. State, 274 P.3d 161 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Blacksher v. State, 371 P.3d 1131 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (standard of review for § 1053 appeals)