Title: State v. Di Amore

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-14-0001222
27-OCT-2017
08:17 AM
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATTREPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the First Circuit (District Court)? found Di Amore not guilty of
ovurz under HRS § 291B-61(a) (1), but guilty of OVUIT under HRS
§ 2918-61(a) (3).
1

Di Amore appeals from the Judgment entered by the
District Court on October 8, 2014. On appeal, Di Amore raises
numerous points of error. We conclude that the dispositive point
of error is Di Amore's contention that the District Court erred
in admitting sworn statements of the Intoxilyzer supervisor,
which were necessary to show that the Intoxilyzer used to
determine Di Anore's breath alcohol concentration was in proper
working order. Based on the Hawai'i Supreme Court's recent
decision in State v, Davis, 140 Hawai'i 252, 400 P.3d 453 (2017),
we conclude that the District Court erred in admitting the
Intoxylizer supervisor's sworn statements and that the State
therefore failed to lay a sufficient foundation for the admission
of the result of Di Amore's breath test.’ We reverse Di Amore's
conviction for OVUII under HRS § 291E-61(a) (3).

In

In Davis, as in this case, the defendant was found
guilty of OVUII under HRS § 2918-61(a) (3) based on an Intoxylizer
test result that showed that the defendant's breath alcohol
concentration exceeded the legal limit.” In laying the
foundation for admission of Davis's Intoxylizer test result, the
State introduced an Intoxylizer supervisor's sworn statements
verifying that on specified dates bracketing Davis's test, the
Intoxilyzer was operating accurately when the supervisor

 

¥ the Honorable David M. Le presided.

¥ me state introduced evidence that Di Anore's breath test showed thet
his alcohol concentration level waa 102 grans of alcohol per 210 livers of
Breath, which was over the Legal init.

¥ pavis was initially charged with OVUII in violation of HAS § 2918-
62 (a) (1) and/or (a) (3}, Bue he was only orally arraigned atthe comencenont
of trial under HRS  291E-61(a) (3), and he wae only convicted of the HRS

$ 25iz-61(a) (3) violation. state , Davis, 140 Hawaii at 253,400 P.34 at
sty State y, Davis, No. CAAP-12-O001121, 2015 WL 4067267, at *1 (Hawai'l App
Sane 30, 203).

 

    
 

   

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

conducted the accuracy test. Id. at 253-54, 400 P.3d at 454-55.
Other than the specified accuracy-test dates, the Intoxilyzer
supervisor's sworn statements in Davis were identical to the
Intoxilyzer supervisor's sworn statements in this case. In both
Davis and in this case, the Intoxilyzer supervisor did not
testify at trial, and the trial court admitted the Intoxilyzer
supervisor's sworn statements over the defendant's hearsay
objection.

In Davis, the Hawai'i Supreme Court held that the
Intoxilyzer supervisor's sworn statements were inadmissible
because they did not fall within the hearsay exception for public
records under Hawai'i Rules of Evidence Rule 803(b) (8) (2016).
Davis, 140 Hawai'i at 262-65, 400 P.3d at 463-66. The supreme
court concluded that without the Intoxilyzer supervisor's sworn
statements, the State failed to lay a sufficient foundation that
the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order when Davis's breath
test was administered, and therefore, the trial court erred in
admitting the result of Davis's breath test. Id. at 265, 400
P.3d at 466. The supreme court held: "As the breath test result
was wrongly admitted, the State failed to show that Davis's
breath alcohol concentration vas .08 or more grams of alcohol per
210 liters of breath, an essential element of the offense of
OVUIT under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3)." Id.

qr.

Based on the supreme court's analysis in Davis, we
conclude that: (1) the District Court in this case erred in
admitting the Intoxilyzer supervisor's sworn statements; (2)
without the Intoxilyer supervisor's sworn statements, the State
failed to lay a sufficient foundation that the Intoxilyzer was in
proper working order, and therefore, the District Court erred in
admitting Di Amore's breath test result; and (3) because the
breath test result was wrongly admitted, the State failed to show
that Di Amore's breath alcohol concentration exceeded the legal
Limit.
   

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

__NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER _

We note that in Davis, the supreme court did not
reverse Davis's conviction, but instead remanded the case for @
new trial. Id. The supreme court remanded Davis's case for @
new trial even though it held, by virtue of its determination on
appeal that Davis's breath test result had been improperly
admitted, that the State had failed to show that Davis's breath
alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit. Id. However, in
State v. Wallace, @0 Hawai'i 382, 414 n.30, 910 P.2d 695, 727
n.30 (1996), the supreme court held that in determining whether
Hawai‘i's double jeopardy clause precludes retrial, the
"gufficiency of the evidence is reviewed based only on the
evidence that was properly admitted at trial." Here, based on
Davis, Di Amore's breath test result was “wrongly admitted," and
it is obvious that without Di Amore's breath test result, the
State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that Di
Amore's breath alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.
Accordingly, we reverse Di Amore's OVUII conviction under HRS
§ 2918-61 (a) (3).

. ww.

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the District Court's
Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 27, 2017.

on the briefs

‘Timothy I. MacMaster Gag WH Veabarroeirn

for Defendant-Appellant. chie¥ guage

Stephen K, Tsushima

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
city and County of Honolulu
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

 

Associate Judge