Court Opinion

ID: 9631665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:45:55.728529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:58.399255
License: Public Domain

Six, J.,
concurring and dissenting: I would affirm Witte’s conviction. I agree that the HGN test results are scientific evidence; however, the admission of the HGN test, in the case at bar, was harmless error.
Witte was charged with two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol. K.S.A. 8-1567(a) (1) and (2). The jury convicted Witte of violating K.S.A. 8-1567(a) (1), operating a vehicle with a BAC of .10 or more. The count based upon K.S.A. 8-1567(a) (2) was dismissed because it merged with the count based upon K.S.A. 8-1567(a) (1).
What was the non-HGN evidence of Witte’s guilt? (1) Deputy Goodwyn testified that he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from inside the car Witte was driving; (2) Goodwyn testified *332that Witte’s eyes were bloodshot and watery; (3) Witte admitted he had drunk two beers; (4) Witte was not able to satisfactorily complete the walk and turn test or the one-legged stand test; (5) the breath test showed that Witte’s BAC was .103; (6) Theresa Hodges testified that the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test Witte was reading breath samples systematically low; and (7) Officer Pinegar also testified that the machine is “usually calibrated on the low side, so it would show a slightly lower reading.”
Theresa Hodges, the State’s expert who tested the machine in question, testified:
“Q. Would you just review how many calibration checks were done on the ticket [the form for the machine in question] on the month of June?
“A. There are eight calibration checks.
“Q. How often are those calibration checks done?
“A. They are done weekly.
“Q. We’re talking about the same machine that the defendant was tested on?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Okay. And would you review that document and tell us your opinion as to how that machine was functioning during June?
“A. First of all, I can the instrument is very precise in the fact that the average difference between any two readings is .001. That’s from computing the differences there. Secondly, all of the readings are below .100. And if you’ll give me a moment here — the meaning of these test results is a .096, which means it has a negative systematic error of point, of 3.5 percent. Which means that it systematically reads the .100 low.
“Q. So that means for the month of June, that machine was giving readings below .1.
“A. Yes. In a systematic manner. But within the area of accuracy of plus or minus five percent.
“Q. Okay. Would you explain the term of systematic error, please?
“A. Okay. What we have done here, there have been six — there have been eight readings taken on a .100 solution. In order to figure a systematic error, you average those and the average comes out to .0965, the systematic error. Then you subtract from that from the known value of .100 and subscribe a percent error or it’s off by 3.5 percent on the negative side. What that means, that the calibration is set on the negative side and systematically reads everything low. If it has been a positive systematic error, it would have been above the .10 and would have systematically read everything a little on the high side. This one has read everything on the low side.
“Q. Would it be a fair statement, then, that that machine was also reading breath tests on the low side?
[Defense Counsel]: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
*333“Q. [Prosecution] Do you have an opinion about how that machine was working as to breath test during the month of June?
“A. Yes. Since it only has one detector in there and one way to evaluate
something, everything that it was would have been systematically low. “Q. So that would have given any individual that tested on the machine the benefit of the doubt.
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Can you describe that percentage of error to a particular breath test?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Is that statistically possible?
“A. It will be scientifically inaccurate to take that percent and ascribe to one number. So I would not do that.
“Q. So you couldn’t take that and say it’s off three percent and ascribe that to this defendant’s breath test.
“A. No, sir.
“Q. What can you say about a particular individual’s breath test during the month of June?
“A. I can say that the instrument systematically was reading everything low.
“Q. Hypothetical: if a person tested .103 on a breath machine, would that reading be low on that machine?
“A. That will be my opinion, yes, sir.”
The majority draws the following observation from Hodges’ testimony: “Nonetheless, this would not preclude a machine from producing a higher percentage than is average during one or more of the eight tests.” In my view, the inference to be drawn from the majority’s observation lifts the lid of Pandora’s Box in the area BAC cross-examination in future K.S.A. 8-1567(a)(l) and (2) (operating a vehicle with a BAC of .10 or more) cases.
The jury observed the witnesses and heard the interplay of the instant Intoxilyzer’s low calibration, the certification for BAC testing, and the ranges of acceptable deviation from .10. In addition, the jury heard the non-HGN evidence of Witte’s guilt, including the strong odor of alcohol, Witte’s bloodshot and watery eyes, his admission of beer consumption, and his failure of the other field sobriety tests.
In my view, the majority is reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the jury.
McFarland, J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.