Opinion ID: 1799214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the trial court err in accepting into evidence intoxilyzer results without proper predicate?

Text: ¶ 15. In the case sub judice, the State presented the testimony of Officer Danny Brooks to show that the results of the intoxilyzer were accurate. Officer Brooks testified that he was certified with the crime lab in the State of Mississippi to run a simulator test on the intoxilyzer to certify the calibration on it. McIlwain objected to Brooks' testimony stating that [t]here should be a certificate filled out showing where he certified the machine. The trial court overruled McIlwain's objection and allowed Brooks to testify from his own knowledge. At the close of Brooks' testimony, McIlwain moved to strike Brooks' testimony for failure to produce the original certificate for certification of the machine and the officer. ¶ 16. McIlwain asserts that the State failed to lay the proper predicate for the admission of the intoxilyzer test results. Rephrased, this issue is identical to that addressed in Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237, 238 (Miss. 1990).
¶ 17. As stated in Johnston; The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused. Hentz v. State, 542 So.2d 914, 917 (Miss. 1989), Monk v. State, 532 So.2d 592, 599 (Miss. 1988). The discretion of the trial court must be exercised within the boundaries of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Under M.R.E. 901, authentication and identification are conditions precedent to admissibility. Generally these serve simply to establish that a matter is what it is claimed to be. However in the illustrations listed for Rule 901, a process or a system may be authenticated or identified when it is shown that the process or system is used to produce a result and that it produces an accurate result. 901 (b)(9) Miss. Rules of Evidence. A chemical analysis of a person's breath, blood, or urine is deemed valid only when performed according to approved methods; performed by a person certified to do so; and performed on a machine certified to be accurate. Certification of the machines must take place at least quarterly. Miss. Code Ann. 63-11-19 (1972). These safeguards insure a more accurate result in the gathering of scientific evidence through intoxilyzers and are strictly enforced. Where one of the safeguards is deficient the State bears the burden of showing that the deficiency did not affect the accuracy of the result. Gibson v. State, 458 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Miss. 1984). Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237, 238 (Miss. 1990). ¶ 18. Johnston sets forth the following three prong test for laying the predicate prior to admitting the results of a D.U.I. test. The court must determine whether the 1) proper procedures were followed, 2) whether the operator of the machine was properly certified to perform the test, and 3) whether the accuracy of the machine was properly certified. Johnston, 567 So.2d at 238. The Johnston requirements are based on Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-19 (1996) which sets forth the following: The State Crime Laboratory shall make periodic, but not less frequently than quarterly, tests of the methods, machines or devices used in making chemical analysis of a person's breath as shall be necessary to ensure the accuracy thereof, and shall issue its certificate to verify the accuracy of the same. Id. ¶ 19. This Court has not yet addressed specifically what is meant by a certificate. In Johnston, Highway Trooper Thompson testified that the intoxilyzer was calibrated every month. We stated that Trooper Thompson's testimony notwithstanding, the State did not produce any evidence that the machine was properly certified and made no effort to meet its burden that even if the intoxilyzer was not properly certified the deficiency did not affect the accuracy of the test. Johnston, 567 So.2d at 239. In the instant case, unlike in Johnston, immediately following the defendant's motion to strike, the State reopened Officer Brooks' testimony and introduced the certification of the intoxilyzer. ¶ 20. In Monroe v. State, 515 So.2d 860, 868 (Miss. 1987), we defined a certified copy as [a] copy of a document or record, signed and certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody the original in intrusted. Monroe v. State, 515 So.2d at 868 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 207 (5th Ed. 1979)). To certify is [t]o authenticate or vouch for a thing in writing. To attest as being true as represented. Id. ¶ 21. As stated by M.R.E. 901(b)(7), evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept is admissible to prove what the proponent claims. ¶ 22. The State clearly met the requirement for admission of the certificate of accuracy for the intoxilyzer. That is not to say, however, that the State is required to present the testimony and allow cross-examination of the calibrating officer, a misunderstanding of the law which may have been engendered by our recent decision in Young v. City of Brookhaven, 693 So.2d 1355 (Miss. 1997). Rather, the State must present the testimony and allow cross-examination of the calibrating officer only in the absence of the certification of the intoxilyzer or where there is a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the certification, which, as stated above, may normally be authenticated by the method set out in Rule 901(b)(7). We find that this assignment of error is without merit.