Court Opinion

ID: 9777006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:51:11.405172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:12.634682
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Judge,
dissenting.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated. Punishment of sixty days’ confinement, probated for two years, plus a fine of $250 was assessed by the court. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Stevenson v. State, No. 05-92-1059CR, 1993 WL 407284 (unpublished) (Tex.App.—Dallas 1993). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in holding the intoxilyzer test results were admissible under Texas Revised Civil Statutes Article 6701(Z )- 5, § 3(a)1. Appellant contends the intoxilyzer results were inadmissible hearsay regardless of the statute.
Officer Drake, who administered the intox-ilyzer test to appellant, did not testify at trial. Officer Champon, a technical supervisor whose duties included maintaining and calibrating intoxilyzers (including the one *700used to test appellant), did testify. Officer Champon testified:
1. the intoxilyzer was operating properly when appellant was tested, and it was certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety;
2. Officer Drake was certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety to administer intoxilyzer tests;
3. maintenance tests were performed on the intoxilyzer used to test appellant several weeks before and several days after appellant’s breath test and no maintenance was required on either occasion; and
4. Officer Drake administered the intoxi-lyzer tests to appellant.
Officer Champon also testified that State’s exhibit three, the intoxilyzer printout, showed appellant had alcohol concentrations of 0.134 and 0.123 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. The trial court overruled appellant’s hearsay objection to appellant’s intoxilyzer test record, holding that it was a business record.
On appeal, appellant contended the test results were hearsay, not subject to the public records exception under Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 803(8) or the business records exception under Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 803(6), and cited Cole v. State, 839 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.Cr.App.1992) for authority. The court of appeals did not address appellant’s hearsay-based argument, holding the test results record was admissible under Article 6701(¿)-5, § 3, Texas Revised Civil Statutes.
The court of appeals reached the correct result, in my opinion. The Texas Legislature established, by statute, standards that must be met before intoxilyzer test results may be admitted as evidence at trial.
Analysis of a specimen of the person’s breath, to be considered valid under the provisions of this section, must be performed according to rules of the Texas Department of Public Safety and by an individual possessing a valid certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety for this purpose.
Article 6701(1 )-5, § 3(b), Texas Revised Civil Statutes.
Testimony at trial established that (1) the intoxilyzer was functioning properly on the day of the test, (2) the machine was properly and periodically maintained and tested by an individual qualified to do so, and (3) the individual who testified as to the results of the tests (Officer Champon) was qualified to do so. By meeting this three-part test the State laid a sufficient predicate for the admission of appellant’s intoxilyzer test printouts under the statute. See Gifford v. State, 793 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990), pet. dismissed 810 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); Harrell v. State, 725 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).
With respect to appellant’s hearsay argument, it has no merit in this ease, though this is not to say that the statute totally abrogates the hearsay rule with respect to intoxi-lyzer tests. If the State fails to meet the three requirements stated in the preceding paragraph, a properly-raised hearsay objection may be appropriately sustained. Reliance by the courts below on Rule 803(6) is misplaced, as this exception is more properly applied to businesses, not public entities like a police department. Intoxilyzer results are also not admissible under Rule 803(8) as matters observed by police officers or other law enforcement personnel.'
The Legislature has the right to create exceptions to the hearsay rule or make other modifications as it sees fit.2 It has done so with respect to intoxilyzer results in a manner that carefully balances the public safety against the rights of those accused of driving while intoxicated.
Because the State has complied with the provisions of Article 6701(Z )-5, § 3, I would affirm the decision of the appeals court.
I respectfully dissent.

. Upon the trial of any criminal action or proceeding arising out of an offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle or watercraft under Chapter 49, Penal Code, evidence of the alcohol concentration or presence of a controlled substance, drug, or other substance as shown by analysis of a specimen of the person’s blood, breath, urine, or any bodily substances taken at the request or order of a peace officer, shall be admissible.

. See Rule 101(c) which states that civil statutes are to be given greater weight than the Rules of Criminal Evidence.