278 P.3d 431
Idaho Ct. App.2012Background
- Kramer was convicted by jury of misdemeanor DUI under Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(4).
- On discovery, Kramer moved to exclude breath test certificates and Intoxilyzer 5000 certificates disclosed the day before trial.
- The magistrate denied the motion; the jury found Kramer guilty of DUI and transporting an open container.
- Kramer argued late disclosure prejudiced his ability to challenge the breath test and that the certificates were testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.
- On appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals held the certificates were not testimonial and that the late-disclosure sanction was properly handled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether late disclosure of the Intoxilyzer 5000 certificates warrants reversal. | Kramer argues late disclosure prejudiced defense preparation. | Kramer contends prejudice from late disclosure violated discovery rules. | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether the Intoxilyzer 5000 certificates are testimonial and violative of the Confrontation Clause. | Kramer asserts certificates are testimonial and require live testimony. | State argues certificates are non-testimonial and do not implicate Confrontation Clause. | Certificates are not testimonial; Confrontation Clause not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buss, 98 Idaho 173 (Idaho Supreme Court 1977) (discovery sanctions within trial court discretion)
- State v. Anderson, 145 Idaho 99 (Idaho Supreme Court 2008) (minimal culpability; prejudice insufficient for sanctions)
- State v. Pacheco, 134 Idaho 367 (Idaho Supreme Court 2000) (late disclosure requires showing prejudice to fair trial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial evidence; Confrontation Clause focus)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (certificates as testimonial; core testimony classifications)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _ (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (lab report testimonial; distinguishes from routine calibration records)
- Zeininger v. Commonwealth, 947 N.E.2d 1060 (Mass. 2011) (calibration certificates; not direct proof of element; not testimonial)
- Ramirez v. State, 928 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. App. 2010) (routine breath test instrument checks not testimonial)