Court Opinion

ID: 9880841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 20:04:20.022044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:52.628271
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KENDELL CEDENO                    )
                                  )
     Defendant-Below              )
     Appellant,                   )
                                  )       Case No.: 2109012465
     v.                           )
                                  )
STATE OF DELAWARE                 )
                                  )
     Plaintiff-Below              )
     Appellee.                    )
                                  )

                       Submitted: June 26, 2023
                       Decided: September 27, 2023

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

                Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas.
                             AFFIRMED

Jason R. Antoine, Esquire, Jason R. Antoine Attorney at Law PLLC,
Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant.

Elaine G. Barton, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware,
for the Appellee.

BUTLER, R.J.

                                      1
      After a bench trial in the Court of Common Pleas, Kendell Cedeno was

convicted of Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol (“DUI”), in violation

of 21 Del. C. § 4177. He has appealed his conviction to this Court. While the Court

has reviewed the entire record, he asks us to review a single evidentiary ruling. Upon

review, the Court affirms the decision of the Court of Common Pleas.

               I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      In September 2021, Corporal Marchione of the Delaware State Police

responded to a call of a vehicle on the side of the road. Upon arrival, Corporal

Marchione saw Mr. Cedeno trying to change a flat tire while standing in the

roadway. The officer testified that the area of the road where the vehicle was situated

was narrow and close to a dangerous curve.

      After the usual back and forth – including Cedeno’s protestation that he had

consumed just the legendary “two beers”1 – the officer suspected that Cedeno was

under the influence of alcohol. Cedeno was transported to Delaware State Police

Troop 1 and, after an Intoxilyzer test registered Mr. Cedeno’s blood-alcohol content

(“BAC”) of .315. Cedeno was arrested.

      At trial, as a prerequisite to admitting Mr. Cedeno’s Intoxilyzer test results,

the State moved to admit Intoxilyzer calibration certification records through

1
 A Westlaw search of “two beers” with the words “alcohol” and “driving” yields its
mention in some 2,000 cases nationwide. If Budweiser is the king of beers, then
surely “two beers” is the king of explanations.
                                          2
Corporal Marchione’s testimony to establish that the Intoxilyzer was working

properly when it was administered to Mr. Cedeno. Defendant’s counsel objected to

the admission of the Intoxylizer certifications. Defendant’s counsel argued that the

certification records produced by the State were incomplete, and, as a result, the

State should be precluded from admitting them into evidence. Ultimately, the Court

of Common Pleas allowed the admission of the certifications, finding them reliable

and properly authenticated.

      The trial proceeded. The State presented evidence showing the Defendant had

a BAC well above the legal limit. The Court of Common Pleas found the Defendant

guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. This appeal followed.

                         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

      In an appeal to the Superior Court, “the standard of review is whether there is

legal error and whether the factual findings made by the trial judge are sufficiently

supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive

process.”2 If the Court of Common Pleas made findings that are supported by the

2
 Onkeo v. State, 957 A.2d 2, 2008 WL 3906076, at *1 (Del. Jul. 1, 2008) (TABLE);
Wheeler v. Clerkin, 871 A.2d 1129, 2005 WL 873341, at *2, (Del. Apr. 13, 2005)
(TABLE).
                                       3
record, then this Court must accept them.3 The Court may review questions of law

de novo.4

      Decisions by the Court of Common Pleas to admit or exclude evidence are

reviewed by this Court under an abuse of discretion standard.5 “An abuse of

discretion ‘occurs when a court has … exceeded the bounds of reason in view of the

circumstances,’ [or] … so ignored recognized rules of law or practice … as to

produce injustice.”6 Reversal of a lower court’s evidentiary decision is permitted

only if there was a clear abuse of discretion.7

                                   I.     ANALYSIS

      Those with some familiarity with the law of DUI in Delaware know that when

the State seeks to introduce the results of an Intoxilyzer test, it must produce the

Intoxilyzer card showing the defendant’s BAC as recorded by the Intoxilyzer

machine.8 And most also know that in order to satisfy the foundational requirements

of scientific validity of the BAC results as recorded by the Intoxilyzer, Delaware

case law requires that the State produce a “Certification Sheet” prepared by the State

3
  Onkeo, 2008 WL 3906076, at *1.
4
  DiSabatino v. State, 808 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Del. Super. 2002) aff’d, 810 A.2d 349,
2002 WL 31546525 (Del. Nov. 2, 2002) (TABLE).
5
  Delaware Acceptance Corp. v. Swain, 2012 WL 6042644, at *3 (Del. Super. Nov.
30, 2012).
6
  Id. (citing Culp v. State, 766 A.2d 486, 489 (Del. 2001) (quoting Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Adams, 541 A.2d 567, 571 (Del. 1988)).
7
  Delaware Acceptance Corp., 2012 WL 6042644, at *3.
8
  See 21 Del. C. § 4177(C)(4) (breath test admissible to prove DUI).
                                           4
Chemist, certifying that on dates prior to and after the subject test, the machine was

operating properly.9

      The Certification Sheet for each Intoxilyzer in service in Delaware is checked

for calibration by the State Chemist periodically. The State Chemist runs known

samples of .05 and .10 through the machine and records how close the machine

reading is to the known sample. These readings, along with the date and time they

are taken, are recorded on the Certification Sheet.10 In addition, the Chemist breaths

into the machine and records the Chemist’s own result (hopefully zero).11

      In addition to the Certification Sheet, there is a perhaps less well-known

backup to the Certification Sheet: the “flimsies.” What are “flimsies?” The Court

in State v. Vickers12 explained flimsies thusly:

      When the operator conducts a calibration test, the procedure is a test record
      card hereinafter (“Intoxilyzer Card”) is placed into the instrument upon which
      the results are printed. An Intoxilyzer Card consists of 4 pieces of paper with
      an original printout and 3 identical carbon copies (sometimes referred to as
      “flimsies.”). The Intoxilyzer Cards are signed by the operator who performed
      the cal-check and that data is transferred onto the calibration certification
      sheet. A calibration certification sheet is generated much like an Intoxilyzer
      Card, with 3 identical carbon copies produced along with it. These copies, like
      all Intoxilyzer Cards and accompanying flimsies contain the Intoxilyzer's

9
  E.g., McConnell v. State, 639 A.2d 74, 1994 WL 43751, at *1 (Del. Feb. 3, 1994)
(TABLE).
10
   See, Transcript of Trial dated October 27, 2022 at 92 (State’s exhibits 1 and 2).
11
   See Id.
12
   2010 WL 2299001, at *6 (Del. Com. Pl. Jun. 9, 2010) (footnotes omitted).
                                          5
      serial number, the date that the test was conducted, and printed on, the results
      of the test, and the precise times the results printed.13

      From the Certification Sheets introduced in evidence in this case, we know

that the final lines of the Certification Sheet include the statement that “An original

copy of all test cards used during this calibration check can be found stapled to this

form.”14

      The State’s presentation was less than perfect. Apparently, the sole testifying

witness – the police officer – went to the police station, located the relevant

Certification Sheets on the day of trial, and took cell phone pictures of the

Certification Sheets and one page of the “flimsies.” He sent these pictures by text

message to the prosecutor, who printed them out in the Courthouse. We know from

the State’s Rule 16 discovery materials, however, that there were several flimsies

attached to the certifications.15 For reasons unknown, the State did not have a copy

13
   Id. The Court notes that in 2010, when Vickers was decided, there was apparently
but one Intoxilyzer Card/flimsie per machine per certification cycle. The record here
suggests the State Chemist may now do more than one check per certification cycle,
resulting in more than one Intoxilyzer Card/flimsie. This may explain why there may
have been more than one flimsie per certification sheet as argued by the Defendant,
but it does not change the Court’s analysis.
14
   Transcript of Trial dated October 27, 2022 at 92 (State’s exhibits 1 and 2)
15
   The State appended a copy of its full discovery response in its Answering Brief
on appeal. The discovery response included a copy of multiple flimsies attached to
each certification sheet. The defense urges in its reply brief that the appendix should
be ignored as it is not part of the record on appeal. Because the Court rules that the
flimsies are not relevant to the admissibility of the certification sheets, the State’s
appendix is merely informative of the practice and is otherwise not considered on
appeal.
                                            6
of its own Rule 16 discovery response to introduce into evidence and it instead

introduced only the officer’s recently photographed, single flimsie.

      This is the heart of the Defendant’s claim on appeal. According to the

Defendant, the Certification Sheets introduced into evidence were incomplete

because they did not include all of the flimsies he had received in discovery. This

failure, according to the Defendant, was fatal to the State’s foundational requirement

to introduce the pre and post Certification Sheets.

      Defendant’s argument conflates the “flimsies” with the Certification Sheet

signed by the Chemist. The Certification is signed and dated by the State Chemist

and certifies that the Intoxilyzer is working “Properly and Accurately.” That is the

essential issue to admissibility of the relevant test – the one taken showing the

defendant’s BAC. The Certification Sheet is, in every sense, the final word of the

State Chemist on the proper functioning of the machine. The flimsies are merely the

basis upon which the Certifier rests his/her Certification; they are not the

Certification itself. The Court does not lightly presume that the certifier simply

“makes up” the certification. As has been repeated many times in these cases,

“[t]here is a well-established presumption that, in the absence of evidence to the

contrary, those responsible for certain services to the public will carry out their duties

                                            7
in a proper, careful and prudent manner.”16 Defendants arguments do not overcome

that presumption.

      The stapled Intoxilyzer cards/flimsies that form the basis of the Chemist’s

conclusion are merely the backup data that support the Certification. The Chemist

may conduct whatever calibration checks s/he feels is appropriate, but it is the

Chemist’s Certification that establishes the reliability of the testing done on the

Defendant.17

      That does not mean that the test cards used during the calibration are any part

of the Certification, which stands on its own. Rather, it invites those with questions

to review the basis for the certification and, if they find “evidence to the contrary,”

to file a motion and/or seek other relief in the Court.

      Consider the case of Oliver v. State.18 The State failed to produce a lab

expert’s bench notes in a drug trial despite a defense request in discovery. 19 Like

the flimsies are to a Certification Sheet, the bench notes in a drug case are the

16
   Judah v. State, 234 A.2d 910, 911 (Del. 1967); See, e.g., State v. McCoy, 2012
WL 1415698, at *5 (Del. Super. Feb. 21, 2012) (state chemist).
17
   See McConnell v. State, 639 A.2d 74, 1994 WL 43751, at *1 (Del. Feb. 3, 1994)
(TABLE) (“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that
the State Chemist acted carefully and in a prudent manner. Judah v. State, Del. Supr.,
234 A.2d 910, 911 (1967). Thus, the record reflects that the trial court properly
exercised its discretion, in accordance with well-established principles of Delaware
law, when the certifications of the State Chemist and the results of McConnell's
intoxilyzer test were admitted into evidence.”)
18
   60 A.3d 1093 (Del. 2013)
19
   Id. at 1096
                                           8
backups that may explain the testing procedure, processes used, etc., in reaching the

drug expert’s conclusion. In Oliver, the State gave over the bench notes on the first

day of trial and trial judge gave defense counsel a day to review the notes in an effort

to remediate the State’s error. The Delaware Supreme Court held that merely

delaying trial was an insufficient remedy and reversed and remanded.20 Thus, Oliver

establishes a discovery obligation that is quite apart from an admissibility

determination. This, however, is not an appeal over discovery, it is an appeal of

admissibility. Oliver did not touch upon the admissibility question.

         Moreover, when defense counsel raised his foundation argument here, the

State offered to recess the trial over lunch and retrieve the rest of the flimsies from

the log books back at the police station. Defendant demurred; clearly, he felt his

best argument was this “lack of foundation” argument raised here, which the Court

finds, well, flimsy.

         It may be that defense counsel has come to see the test cards attached to the

Certification Sheet as “part” of the certification. But Defendant’s argument confuses

his entitlement to discovery with admissibility of the Certification Sheet at trial. The

Court can easily agree that the “flimsies” are discoverable by the defense upon a

proper request. But the rules of evidence provide no recourse to deny admissibility

merely because the testing slips are missing from the trial exhibit.

20
     Id. at 1099-1100.
                                           9
      So, the Court should make clear, Defendant likely has a right to explore the

backup data/Intoxilyzer Cards/flimsies that comprise the testing that produces the

Certification Sheet of the State Chemist. That issue, however, is not the one before

the Court. And there may be a case in which the data reveals a question about the

Certification Sheets that is worthy of pretrial litigation. Again, that issue is not

before the Court. The Court concludes that the backup cards that are used by the

Chemist to make his/her certification are not, as an evidentiary matter, such an

integral part of the Certification Sheet itself that their absence forecloses

admissibility of the Certification Sheets at trial. Thus, Defendant’s appeal must be

denied, and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must be AFFIRMED.

                           I.    CONCLUSION

      For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s conviction for DUI is

AFFIRMED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                      /s/ Charles E. Butler
                                      Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge

                                        10