Title: State v. Brooks

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_BROOKS.93-018; 162 Vt. 26; 643 A.2d 226

[Opinion Filed November 29, 1993]

[Motion for Reargument Denied May 3, 1994]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.



                                 No. 93-018

 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

 Gerald H. Brooks                             September Term, 1993




 Edward J. Cashman, J.

 Gary S. Kessler, Supervising Appellate Prosecutor, State's Attorneys and
    Sheriffs Department, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellant

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and William F. Wargo,
    Assistant Attorney General, Burlington, for Department of Health

 Steve Dunham, Public Defender, St. Albans, for defendant-appellee



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      MORSE, J.  The State appeals from the district court's interlocutory
 ruling that evidence of blood-alcohol content (BAC) measured by DataMaster
 infrared testing device is inadmissible in either a DUI civil suspension or
 a DUI criminal proceeding.  Well over one-hundred cases were joined and
 governed by the court's ruling.  We reverse.
      While driving a motor vehicle on Route 7 in St. Albans, defendant was
 stopped by a state trooper for an equipment defect.  During the stop, the
 trooper suspected defendant was DUI and conducted field sobriety tests.
 Defendant eventually submitted to a DataMaster breath test, resulting in a

 

 BAC reading of .175%.  Defendant requested a second DataMaster test, which
 was performed shortly after the first.  The second test resulted in a BAC of
 .183%, a reading that deviated slightly less than 5% from the first.
 Defendant was then charged with DUI.
      Defendant moved to exclude the DataMaster test results on grounds that
 the Department of Health had not properly promulgated rules to trigger a
 presumption of validity under 23 V.S.A. { 1203(d) ("analysis performed by
 the state shall be considered valid when performed according to a method or
 methods selected by the department of health") and because the Datamaster
 testing device did not conform to department performance standards.  The
 court held the department had not satisfied the statute's rulemaking
 requirement.  This determination was not appealed and is not before us.
      The sole issue on appeal is whether the State is precluded from
 demonstrating the scientific reliability of the DataMaster infrared testing
 equipment and testing methodology, in general, and the trustworthiness of
 defendant's test result in particular.  The trial court ruled that even if
 the State could show, without using the statutory presumption, that the test
 results were reliable, they would nonetheless be inadmissible.  The court
 acknowledged that its ruling directly contradicted our holding in State v.
 Mills, 133 Vt. 15, 17,