Opinion ID: 888275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court err in admitting Intoxilyzer evidence over lack of adequate foundation objections?

Text: ¶ 11 The determination of whether an adequate foundation exists for the admission of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Therefore, we review such determinations for an abuse of discretion. See Town of Columbus v. Harrington, 2001 MT 258, ¶ 39, 307 Mont. 215, ¶ 39, 36 P.3d 937, ¶ 39. ¶ 12 To sustain a conviction, the State must prove each element of a charged criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Price, 2002 MT 284, ¶ 33, 312 Mont. 458, ¶ 33, 59 P.3d 1122, ¶ 33 (citation omitted). One element of the charge of vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol is that the defendant was driving under the influence in violation of § 61-8-401 or 406, MCA. See § 45-5-106(1), MCA. Because DUI is a strict liability offense, a test that reveals the defendant's breath alcohol concentration often is the critical proof establishing the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. State v. Frickey, 2006 MT 122, ¶ 18, 332 Mont. 255, ¶ 18, 136 P.3d 558, ¶ 18. ¶ 13 In the instant case, the State offered evidence of the results of Pol's breath alcohol test taken on a breath analysis instrument known as the Intoxilyzer 5000. Initially, the prosecutor simply asked Zylawy about the results of the test. Pol's counsel objected, and the District Court instructed the State to lay a foundation for the results. The prosecutor then questioned Zylawy about how a breath test measures alcohol in a person's blood and, after Zylawy answered, again asked Zylawy the results of Pol's breath test. Pol's counsel again objected on lack of foundation grounds. Following that objection, the prosecutor elicited Zylawy's testimony about calibration of the Intoxilyzer 5000 during the breath test and how the breath readings are displayed on the machine, and again asked Zylawy for the results of Pol's breath test. Pol's counsel objected for lack of foundation. At that point, the District Court intervened and inquired whether Zylawy had received training on the breathalyzer and whether he was certified to administer breath tests. Zylawy said he was, and the court overruled Pol's objection. Zylawy then testified that Pol's breath alcohol reading was .16, or twice the legal limit. ¶ 14 Pol argues on appeal that Zylawy's testimony was insufficient on a stand-alone basis to meet the foundational requirements for admission of the Intoxilyzer 5000 results because Zylawy did not present evidence of either the calibration or the laboratory certification. He relies on Admin. R.M. 23.4.213(1), 23.4.214(1) and Frickey, ¶ 16, for the requirement that breath analysis instruments must be field certified once every 7 days and laboratory certified once every 365 days. Pol also relies on State v. Incashola to support his argument that where the State does not lay proper foundation for the breath test analysis, the results of the analysis are inadmissible. 1998 MT 18, ¶ 8, 289 Mont. 399, ¶ 8, 961 P.2d 745, ¶ 8. ¶ 15 In response, the State raises a threshold argument that Pol's lack-of-foundation objections to the breath test results did not alert the District Court to the argument now presented on appeal. The State points out that Pol did not challenge the sufficiency of the foundation for admission of the breath test result prior to trial and advances State v. Ferguson, 2005 MT 343, ¶ 63, 330 Mont. 103, ¶ 63, 126 P.3d 463, ¶ 63, in support of its contention that Pol's broad general objections did not preserve this issue for appeal. ¶ 16 We agree that Pol's broad general objections did not adequately preserve this issue for appeal. We have repeatedly held that issues presented for the first time on appeal are untimely and we will not consider them. State v. LaFreniere, 2008 MT 99, ¶ 11, 342 Mont. 309, ¶ 11, 180 P.3d 1161, ¶ 11 (citation omitted). Furthermore, an objection must be specific in order to preserve the issue for appeal. LaFreniere, ¶ 12. Although Pol's counsel objected three times for lack of foundation, at no time, either in his pretrial memorandum or in his trial objections, did he make a specific objection to the fact that the Intoxilyzer 5000 had not been certified within a one-year period. ¶ 17 Pol's reliance on Frickey is misplaced. In Frickey, 2006 MT 122, 332 Mont. 255, 136 P.3d 558, the defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results by filing a pretrial motion to suppress on the specific grounds that the instrument was not properly certified. The defendant's motion permitted the District Court to examine the laboratory certification and allowed this Court to determine that the administrative requirement for annual certification had not been established. ¶ 18 Pol also relies on State v. Incashola, 1998 MT 184, 289 Mont. 399, 961 P.2d 745, but this reliance is also inaccurate. In Incashola, the defendant filed a pretrial motion in limine, arguing the breath test results were inadmissible because the State could not lay a proper foundation for the field certification of the Intoxilyzer. Accordingly, both the District Court and this Court were in a position to examine the certification process and apply the relevant law. The point to be gleaned from Frickey and Incashola is not that they objected prior to trial, but that they complied with Mont. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) by stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context[.] ¶ 19 Here, in response to Pol's general lack of foundation objections, the trial court received testimony about qualifications of the officer, the procedures undertaken to administer the test to Pol, and the calibration of the Intoxilyzer 5000. In the absence of any further specificity from defense counsel, the court was not required to divine any additional basis for Pol's foundation objection. ¶ 20 We hold the District Court did not err in admitting Intoxilyzer evidence.