State v. Rehmann
17 A.3d 278
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Defendant William R. Jr. was charged with per se DWI, reckless driving, careless driving, and failure to wear a seatbelt after a motor vehicle accident.
- The State relied on a BAC certificate testified to by Maxwell, a forensic scientist who supervised but did not perform the testing.
- Mitchell actually performed the gas chromatography testing, with Maxwell supervising given Mitchell’s retraining.
- Maxwell signed the laboratory report and testified about the testing and its meaning, including the BAC result.
- Defendant argued the Confrontation Clause was violated because a non-testing expert testified to testing results; he also challenged the testing deviation methodology used to determine BAC.
- Municipal court and Law Division rejected these arguments and convicted defendant; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause violation from surrogate testify of testing results | Maxwell supervised Mitchell and signed the report; he was the proper witness | Testimony about the testing by a non-performing witness violates confrontation | No Confrontation Clause violation; surrogate supervision permissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence on BAC deviation and per se DWI | Deviation of 5% supported BAC above the legal limit | Expert testimony suggested 9–10% deviation; could place BAC below limit | Issue deemed insufficiently meritorious to warrant discussion; upheld conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kent, 391 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div. 2007) (confrontation rights and BAC certificates)
- State v. Berezansky, 386 N.J. Super. 84 (App. Div. 2006) (confrontation rights in BAC testing)
- State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008) (analysis of machine data and operator testimony under confrontation)