State v. Julie Kuropchak
113 A.3d 1174
| N.J. | 2015Background
- On Jan. 25, 2010 Julie Kuropchak was involved in a head-on collision; officers observed signs they believed indicated intoxication and arrested her.
- Officer Serritella administered field sobriety tests (two failed) and prepared a Drinking Driving Report (DDR) and Drinking Driving Questionnaire (DDQ).
- Officer Brito conducted Alcotest breath testing; after multiple attempts, two tests produced matching readings of .10% BAC.
- The State introduced several Alcotest-related documents but admitted an incorrect Certificate of Analysis (for lot 09D065 rather than the control lot 08J060) and failed to admit the most recent Calibrating Unit New Standard Solution Report during its case-in-chief.
- The municipal court convicted Kuropchak on observational evidence and the Alcotest result; the Law Division affirmed on de novo review (deferring to credibility findings); the Appellate Division affirmed.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court considered (1) admissibility/foundation for Alcotest results under State v. Chun; (2) admissibility/confrontation and hearsay issues for the DDR and DDQ; and (3) sufficiency of observational evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/foundation for Alcotest results (Chun requirements) | State maintained it introduced sufficient foundational calibration and control documents and the Alcotest results were reliable | Kuropchak argued the State failed to produce required Chun foundational documents (correct Certificate of Analysis and most recent new standard solution report) so per se result was inadmissible | Court: Error to admit Alcotest results without required Chun foundational documents; per se conviction improper |
| Admissibility of DDR and DDQ under Confrontation Clause | State: Officer Serritella authored the reports and testified and was cross-examined, so no Crawford violation | Kuropchak: Reports are testimonial and their admission without confronting declarants violates Crawford | Court: No Confrontation Clause violation because officer testified and was cross-examined |
| DDR and DDQ admissibility under hearsay/business-records exception | State/AG: Reports are business records made routinely and timely, admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6) | Kuropchak/NJSBA: Reports include narrative opinions and testimonial material not suited to business-records exception | Court: DDR and DDQ contain inadmissible hearsay and are not within the business-records exception; must be excluded |
| Sufficiency of observational evidence supporting DWI conviction apart from Alcotest | State: Aggregate of officer observations (lane position, slurred speech, failed tests, bloodshot eyes, slow responses) sufficed | Kuropchak: Each indicium has innocent explanations (accident trauma, illness, prior foot surgeries) and credibility should favor defendant | Court: Because inadmissible Alcotest and DDR/DDQ may have unduly influenced credibility findings, the court remanded for a new trial rather than decide sufficiency on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (N.J. 2008) (sets mandatory foundational-document and tolerance requirements for Alcotest admissibility)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements by non-testifying witnesses)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (clarifies testimonial statements and primary-purpose test)
- State v. Sweet, 195 N.J. 357 (N.J. 2008) (addresses testimonial vs. foundational police reports and business-records analysis)