Matthies v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KM-00783-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KM-00783-COA ; 2010-CT-00783-SCT ; 2010-CT-00783-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-31-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI first offense - Admission of intoxilyzer calibration records Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-19-2010 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: Convicted of driving under the influence, first offense, and sentenced to forty-eight hours in the custody of the sheriff of Madison County, with the sentence suspended for two years unless sooner invoked on certain specified conditions, and to pay a fine of $700 District Attorney: City of Madison Prosecutor John Hedglin Case Number: 2009-0439-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Andrew Matthies a/k/a Andrew K. Matthies |
KEVIN DALE CAMP |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN HEDGLIN, BILLY L. GORE, SCOTT STUART |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | DUI first offense - Admission of intoxilyzer calibration records |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andrew Matthies was convicted of driving under the influence, first offense. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Matthies argues the admission of intoxilyzer calibration records violated his confrontation rights because the person who calibrated the machine did not testify. When an out-of-court statement is testimonial, it is inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross examine the declarant. Conversely, nontestimonial hearsay falls outside the scope of the Confrontation Clause, but still is subject to evidentiary rules concerning reliability. A statement is nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. The certificates at issue here do nothing more than verify the accuracy of the equipment. Though the intoxilyzer was calibrated for use in criminal prosecutions, the certificates were not specifically prepared with an eye on prosecuting Matthies. Thus, there was no requirement that the person who calibrated the intoxilyzer testify for the proper admission of the calibration records. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
