State v. Kelly M. Taylor, 129 A.3d 660

In July 2014 Kelly M. Taylor was stopped for suspected DUI, gave a preliminary breath test above the limit, was arrested, and later produced a 0.158 BAC on a DataMaster evidentiary breath test.
The State filed for civil suspension under 23 V.S.A. § 1205 and submitted affidavits from the arresting officer (which attached the DataMaster printout or “ticket”) and a state forensic chemist who reviewed the ticket and device records.
At the final civil-suspension hearing the trial court excluded the DataMaster ticket from evidence but admitted the officer’s and chemist’s affidavits; the court nonetheless found the State had met its burden that the testing methods were valid and results accurate.
Taylor appealed, arguing § 1205(h)(1)(D) requires the DataMaster ticket itself as evidence to prove the testing process, calibration, and internal checks that validate the numerical result.
The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and factual findings for clear error and affirmed the suspension, holding the ticket need not be admitted if other admissible evidence establishes validity and accuracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1205(h)(1)(D) requires admission of the DataMaster printout (ticket) itself to prove testing methods and result accuracy	State: need only prove elements of § 1205(h)(1)(D) (test taken, result above limit, methods valid/reliable, results accurate); may do so without the ticket if other evidence proves those elements	Taylor: the ticket is the only objective record of calibration, blank tests, and simulator checks; without it the State cannot show the scientific process that produced the numeric result	Court: statute does not mandate admission of the ticket; State may prove validity and accuracy by other admissible evidence (e.g., chemist and officer affidavits)
Whether an expert/chemist may base opinion on the ticket when the ticket is not admitted into evidence	State: chemist may rely on materials not admitted into evidence and testify about device reliability and result accuracy	Taylor: chemist’s opinion improperly depends on a source (the ticket) that was excluded from evidence	Court: expert testimony may be based on facts or data not admitted if the type of information is reasonably relied upon by experts; liberal evidentiary rules apply in civil-suspension hearings, so chemist could rely on the ticket in forming her opinion

State v. Spooner, 192 Vt. 465 (Vt. 2012) (standard of review for civil-suspension proceedings)
Trombley v. Bellows Falls Union High Sch., 160 Vt. 101 (Vt. 1993) (avoid interpretations that render statutory language surplusage)
State v. Beyor, 161 Vt. 565 (Vt. 1994) (legislative intent may be inferred from statutory text when specifying required evidence)
State v. Nugent, 195 Vt. 411 (Vt. 2014) (liberal evidentiary rules govern DUI civil-suspension proceedings)
State v. Rabusitz, 145 P.3d 861 (Haw. Ct. App. 2006) (printout not required where expert testified to device reliability)
Grace v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) (printout not necessary for agency to meet prima facie burden)