Matthies v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00783-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-KM-00783-COA ; 2010-KM-00783-COA ; 2010-CT-00783-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-12-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI first offense - Intoxilyzer certificates - Confrontation clause - Miss. Const., Art. 3, Sec. 26 - Testimonial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., Kitchens and King, JJ. 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: Appellant was found guilty of DUI first. District Attorney: Michael Guest Case Number: 2009-0439-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Andrew Matthies a/k/a Andrew K. Matthies |
KEVIN DALE CAMP
JOHN MICHAEL DUNCAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Intoxilyzer certificates - Confrontation clause - Miss. Const., Art. 3, Sec. 26 - Testimonial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andrew Matthies was charged with driving under the influence (first offense) and entered a plea of nolo contendere to that charge in the City of Madison Municipal Court. He was sentenced to suspended jail time, a fine, and court costs. Matthies also was required to satisfactorily complete the Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program. Matthies then appealed to the County Court of Madison County and received a trial de novo conducted without a jury. The judge found Matthies guilty of DUI (first offense) and sentenced Matthies to a forty-eight-hour jail sentence, suspended; completion of the MASEP program; unsupervised probation for a two-year period; and payment of certain costs, fees, and assessments, which were due within sixty days of the date of the judgment. Matthies appealed to circuit court which affirmed the county-court conviction and remanded the case to the County Court of Madison County for execution of the county court’s final judgment. Matthies appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Matthies argues that the intoxilyzer certificates presented at his trial were testimonial in nature and thus subject to the protections of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution. In Harkins v. State, 735 So. 2d 317, 319 (Miss. 1999), the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that admitting the “calibration certificates [for the intoxilyzer] without testimony from the calibration officer does not, in general, violate . . . the confrontation clauses in the Mississippi or United States constitutions.” However, Matthies urges the Court to consider more recent precedent from the United States Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, __U.S.__, 131 S. Ct. 2705, 2706, 180 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2011) affirmed that certificates relating to the analysis of the BAC level in a defendant’s blood may be testimonial in nature. Unlike the instant case, however, the test in Bullcoming involved a forensic laboratory report of the defendant’s blood. Where the analyst who had administered that test was not called at trial, but instead replaced by a different scientist who had neither observed nor reviewed the test, the defendant’s Confrontation-Clause rights were violated. This case is distinguished from Bullcoming in that it relates to the analyst who prepared certificates of the calibration for the intoxilyzer device, not the analyst who conducted the intoxilyzer test itself. The Court of Appeals found that the wide majority of appellate courts examining this question found such records to be nontestimonial. In particular, the Court of Appeals cited the persuasive authority of Ramirez v. State, 928 N.E.2d 214, 219 (Ind. App. 2010) for the proposition that, as calibration records are completed in advance of specific drunk-driving incidents, they are not testimonial in nature. Today, the Court specifically states that records pertaining to intoxilyzer inspection, maintenance, or calibration are indeed nontestimonial in nature, and thus, their admission into evidence is not violative of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Therefore, Matthies’s Confrontation-Clause rights were not violated. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
