State v. Villena.
140 Haw. 370
| Haw. | 2017Background
- Villena was charged with OVUII after observed driving erratically and at high speed; he consented to blood testing, and medical technologist Karla Perry performed the draw and enzymatic analysis on an Ace Alera instrument, producing a 0.16% BAC result.
- The State sought admission of (1) a DUI coordinator licensing letter (State’s Ex. 1) approving the laboratory, method, and Ace Alera instrument, and (2) Perry’s blood alcohol testing statement (State’s Ex. 2) and her testimony about procedure and calibration.
- Defense objected to admission of the blood-test results on multiple grounds: lack of expert foundation under Montalbo, failure to meet HAR Title 11 requirements, hearsay/authentication for the licensing letter, and Confrontation Clause concerns.
- The district court admitted the licensing letter and Perry’s testimony; it took Exhibit 2 under advisement but ultimately admitted it. Villena was convicted; the ICA affirmed (finding Exhibit 2 admission erroneous but harmless).
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the State laid a proper foundation for the blood-test result and whether the licensing letter was admissible; it affirmed the ICA’s judgment, holding the licensing letter was nonhearsay and the Werle shortcut plus Perry’s testimony satisfied Montalbo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Villena) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation for blood-test admissibility (Montalbo factors) | Werle shortcut applies because DUI coordinator gave written approval; Perry’s testimony showed proper application on the occasion | State failed to present expert testimony on validity of method/instrument and failed strict HAR compliance | The Werle shortcut applied via licensing letter; Perry’s testimony satisfied the third Montalbo factor — foundation adequate |
| Admissibility of DUI coordinator licensing letter (hearsay) | Letter is admissible to show written approval/licensing — a document of independent legal significance (nonhearsay) and also fits public-record/regular-course exceptions | The letter is hearsay, unauthenticated, and admission violated Confrontation Clause | Licensing letter is nonhearsay (document of independent legal significance); admission was proper; Court did not reach Confrontation Clause issue |
| Compliance with HAR §11-114 requirements (regulatory strictness) | State relied on licensing letter and Perry’s qualifications/testimony; ICA found objections as to strict HAR compliance were waived for late objection | Villena argued State failed to show strict compliance with HAR §§11-114-23(a)(3) and (b), affecting accuracy | Court affirmed waiver by failure to timely object and found Perry’s testimony plus licensing letter sufficient to address regulatory concerns |
| Admission of Perry’s sworn testing statement (State’s Ex. 2) and Confrontation/hearsay concerns | Any error admitting Exhibit 2 was harmless because foundation existed via Perry’s testimony and the licensing letter | Admission of Exhibit 2 was hearsay and violated confrontation; error was prejudicial | Admission of Exhibit 2 was erroneous but harmless error; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Werle, [citation="121 Hawai'i 274, 218 P.3d 762"] (recognizes DUI coordinator written approval as a shortcut to satisfy Montalbo for method and instrument)
- State v. Montalbo, 73 Haw. 130, 828 P.2d 1274 (establishes three-factor test for admissibility of scientific evidence: validity of principle, validity of method, proper application)
- State v. Wallace, [citation="80 Hawai'i 382, 910 P.2d 695"] (background rule that foundations must be laid before introducing out-of-court test results)