Opinion ID: 1275347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidentiary Foundation

Text: The admission or exclusion of evidence, subject to exclusionary rules, is within the trial court's discretion. State v. Coleman, 253 Kan. 335, 344, 856 P.2d 121 (1993). Discretion is abused only when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would adopt the trial court's view. State v. Baker, 255 Kan. 680, Syl. ¶ 9, 877 P.2d 946 (1994). State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 978, 897 P.2d 152 (1995). To create an evidentiary foundation for a breath test, the State must introduce evidence into trial that the testing equipment was certified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), that the testing procedures were used in accordance with the manufacturer's operational manual and the requirements set out by the KDHE, and that the person who operated the testing equipment was certified by the KDHE to operate such equipment. K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 8-1002(a)(3)(A)-(C); see State v. Lieurance, 14 Kan. App.2d 87, 91, 782 P.2d 1246 (1989), rev. denied 246 Kan. 769 (1990). ([T]o introduce the results of a breath test, the prosecution must lay a foundation showing that the testing machine was operated according to the manufacturer's operational manual and any regulations set forth by the Department of Health and Environment.); State v. Rohr, 19 Kan. App.2d 869, 870, 878 P.2d 221 (1994) (`[T]he legislature has expressly found that, for breath test results to be reliable, the testing equipment, the testing procedures, and the operator of the equipment must all be certified.'); K.A.R. 28-32-1. In this case, the State introduced actual documents, indicating certification of the test equipment and the test procedures, into evidence at trial. For instance, the State discussed and introduced into evidence Exhibit 5, an original document indicating that the KDHE had certified the specific breath test machine used for Bishop's test. The State should have made it more clear on the record what this document was and that it was an original document. However, the fact that it was an original equipment certification document can be determined from the record and, thus, it was properly admitted into evidence to lay a foundation for the breath test. If in fact Exhibit 5 was not an original document certifying the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine used in Bishop's breath test, this does not create reversible error. It is the defendant's responsibility to show error based on the record on appeal. The record does not include Exhibit 5, and the defendant did not ask that the exhibit be added to the record. Further, in an attempt to prove that the testing procedures were certified by the KDHE, the State also discussed and introduced into evidence Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. Exhibit 4 was a copy of the certified monthly standard report for the breath test machine used for Bishop's test. The original of this document was sent to the KDHE. Exhibit 3 was a copy of a record indicating that the solution used in calibrating Bishop's breath test machine was certified. Exhibit 2 was the original operator's weekly log record, indicating how many tests had been run on the machine so the operator would know when the calibration solution needed to be changed (after 14 tests). Finally, the trooper who administered the breath test to Bishop testified that he was certified to perform the test at the time it was conducted. The trooper was testifying as to his own personal knowledge that he was certified by KDHE to perform the breath test on Bishop. This testimony amounted to substantial competent evidence which the trial court could use to conclude that the trooper was certified to conduct the test. Thus, this evidence, as a whole, created a proper evidentiary foundation for the breath test so that the breath test results were properly entered into evidence. However, Bishop points out that some of the documents entered into evidence to prove that the test equipment and testing procedures were certified were not original certification documents. Since the documents were not originals, Bishop contends that the required certification was not proven and that a foundation for the breath test and its result was not properly laid. Bishop is incorrect. Without question, the better practice is for the State to produce the original documents of certification for admission into evidence. 19 Kan. App.2d at 871. However, 8-1002(b) specifically allows copies of the certification documents to be entered into evidence to prove that the appropriate certification for the test equipment and procedures existed. (The signed certification or a copy or photostatic reproduction thereof shall be admissible in evidence in all proceedings brought pursuant to this act.... K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 8-1002[b].) It is true that using copies of documents can sometimes violate the hearsay rule and the best evidence rule. However, both of these rules contain exceptions which apply here and allow copies of documents to be entered into evidence. The best evidence rule allows copies of documents to be introduced into evidence if the trial judge finds the writing is an official record. K.S.A. 60-467(a)(2)(E). All of the copies which were introduced into evidence in this trial were copies of official certification documents that had been sent to the KDHE. Further, the hearsay rule allows copies of documents to be admitted into evidence if the document purports to be a copy of an official record and it has been authenticated to prove the content of the record. K.S.A. 60-460(o). All of the copies of documents that were entered into evidence at trial were copies of official recordsofficial certification records sent to the KDHE. A copy of an official record is authenticated if evidence has been introduced sufficient to warrant a finding that the copy is a correct duplicate of an official record. K.S.A. 60-465(2). The copied documents at issue were discussed and explained by the current custodian of the documents and the person who was the custodian of the documents at the time that Bishop's test was administered. These witnesses testified that these copies of the original certification records were true and accurate duplicates of the original records. Thus, based on these exceptions to the best evidence rule and the hearsay rule, the copies of the certification documents were properly entered into evidence. See Lieurance, 14 Kan. App.2d at 91 (citing K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-467[a][5]); 60-465. Relying on the original documents (the original log book of calibrations and the test machine's original certification document), the copied documents (a copy of the certified monthly standard report for the breath test machine and a copy of the document certifying the calibration solution), and the trooper's testimony that he was certified to conduct breath tests at the time he administered Bishop's breath test, the State laid an adequate foundation for admitting the breath test evidence into trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence regarding the breath test into trial. Finally, Bishop objects to the results of the breath test (.149) being admitted into evidence at trial because no witness laid an evidentiary foundation for test results by testifying as to what the.149 test results meant. This issue fails for two reasons. First, when the State introduced the results of the breath test, the defense counsel did not specifically object to this evidence on the basis that no witness had testified regarding what .149 meant. Instead, the defense counsel merely objected to the breath test and its result being introduced into evidence because a proper foundation had not been laid for the breath test. An issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Alderson, 260 Kan. 445, Syl. ¶ 7, 922 P.2d 435 (1996); see also State v. Boyd, 257 Kan. 82, 89, 891 P.2d 358 (1995) (timely objection necessary to give trial court an opportunity to correct alleged errors). Since the defense counsel did not make this objection at trial regarding the State's failure to explain the .149 breath test result, he cannot now raise this issue on appeal. See Lieurance, 14 Kan. App.2d at 93. (Lieurance argues that the Intoxilyzer results, `.234' were not explained to mean grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Lieurance did not raise this at trial, so it cannot be raised on appeal.) Second, even if the defense had properly objected to this issue at trial and properly raised it on appeal, this issue would fail. The trooper who conducted Bishop's breath test was asked to explain the procedure he followed in conducting a breath best. The trooper testified as follows: [I]n this instance I believe I showed him how to blow into the tube, and the machine will do the rest. It will give a sample which they have to blow long and hard enough for the Intoxilyzer to obtain a sample of the deep lung air, and it will stop and tell what the blood alcohol content is. It does it through a display. Q [By prosecutor]: And does that come out as a printout piece of paper? A: Yes, it does. Q: And do you have that printout here today? Yes, I do. .... Q: Now, I would ask you to go ahead and identify what I have marked there as State's Exhibit Number One. A: This is a printout form, evidence printout form, and it shows the observation time, the subject's name, the Intoxilyzer serial number, shows the air blank, the standardextended standard, and shows the subject's test and another air blank. .... Q: Trooper Zeller, then, what were the results of that test? .... A: The subject's test result was .149. Based on the trooper's testimony, the jury was aware that the.149 result from Bishop's breath test was his blood alcohol concentration. Further, Jury Instruction No. 12 explained to the jury the elements necessary to convict Bishop of driving under the influence. This instruction stated: The defendant is charged with the crime of operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The defendant pleads not guilty. To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That the defendant drove or attempted to drive a vehicle; 2. That the defendant, while driving or attempting to drive, was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safely driving a vehicle; and 3. That this act occurred on or about the 9th day of August, 1996, in Wyandotte County, Kansas. The defendant is charged in the alternative with operating a vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more or operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. You are instructed that the alternative charges constitute one crime. You should consider if the defendant is guilty of operating a vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more and sign the verdict upon which you agree. (Emphasis added.) Based on this jury instruction, the jury was aware that if Bishop had a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, then he was guilty of DUI. Relying on the trooper's testimony and jury instruction No. 12, the jury had enough information to figure out what Bishop's breath test result meant. The jury did not need a full medical explanation of how blood alcohol concentration is determined or a full technical explanation of exactly how the machine determines this content. This issue fails.