Opinion ID: 1239001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Rohr Case

Text: The State calls into question the foundational requirements for admission of breath test results announced in Rohr, 19 Kan. App. 2d 869. An issue of law is subject to unlimited review. See State v. Donlay, 253 Kan. 132, 134, 853 P.2d 680 (1993). We address the State's challenge to Rohr. Rohr appealed his DUI conviction, arguing that the district court erred in admitting his breath test results without proper certification. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. At trial, the officer who administered the breath test testified that the test instrument and operator were properly certified on the date of the test. Rohr objected on lack of foundation and hearsay grounds; the written certification from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment of the operator and instrument were not introduced. The Rohr court observed that admission of the actual documents of certification appeared to be the standard, stating: 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, the court noted a greater problem was whether the officer's testimony regarding certification violated the prohibition against hearsay [K.S.A. 60-460] and/or the best evidence rule as codified in K.S.A.... 60-467(a). 19 Kan. App.2d at 871. Rohr concluded that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and also violated the best evidence rule. We agree. Although dealing with the question of whether a breath testing device had to be reinspected following repairs to maintain certification, we recently cited Rohr with approval in State v. Strand, 261 Kan. 895, 898, 933 P.2d 713 (1997). The State requests us to disapprove Rohr, arguing that Weed's testimony about his certification is not hearsay. The certification card is a statement by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment certifying that Weed has complied with the applicable rules and regulations for testing human breath for alcohol for law enforcement purposes with the Intoxilyzer 5000, with an effective date of January 1, 1996, and an expiration date of December 31, 1996. The State relies on State v. Lieurance, 14 Kan. App.2d 87, 782 P.2d 1246 (1989), rev. denied 246 Kan. 769 (1990), in arguing that an officer's testimony regarding testing procedures and certification should be as sufficient for foundational purposes as the actual certification documents. Nothing in Lieurance supports the State's argument that an officer's testimony about his certification could be used as a substitute for the statutorily required certification document. The State claims that if Rohr were extended to other licensed professionals, doctors and lawyers would have to bring all their diplomas into court. The State's observation is off the mark. The argument ignores the entry of the legislature into this evidentiary arena. The specific certification requirements set forth at 8-1002(a)(3) are properly acknowledged in Rohr, 19 Kan. App.2d at 870. The State counters the best evidence rule by contending that the district court could have found Weed's certification card had been lost or destroyed, under K.S.A. 60-467(a)(2)(A). However, the State never requested such a finding. Had it done so, the situation giving rise to the mistrial could have been prevented. The district judge's ruling was based in part on his view that the State had other proper ways to establish Weed's certification, but chose not to pursue them. The State contends that Rohr misapplied the best evidence rule. The State asserts that Weed's testimony that he is certified is the same thing as the certification itself. Its assertion is faulty. According to the State, requiring the 1995 certification card is an ill-conceived technical requirement that would have had no impact on the defense's ability to fully question the officer about the ultimate issues in this case. If so, the argument should be addressed to the legislature. The district court did not err in ruling that Weed's testimony about his certification was an insufficient foundation for admission of the breath test result.