People v. Lebrecht
Decision Date | 27 July 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 2005-851 W CR.,2005-851 W CR. |
Citation | 13 Misc.3d 45,823 N.Y.S.2d 824,2006 NY Slip Op 26347 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HELEN LEBRECHT, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
Judgments of conviction affirmed.
While traveling home in the early morning of October 21, 2004, as she later admitted to the arresting officer, defendant swerved from her traffic lane, while trying to retrieve a dropped cell phone, and sideswiped another vehicle causing damage to both cars. In the course of the ensuing official investigation, defendant exhibited glassy eyes, impaired speech, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage. She also admitted to the officer that she had consumed two drinks at a restaurant, and she proved unable to perform roadside sobriety tests. After a chemical test of her blood alcohol content (BAC) produced a reading of .07%, she was charged with driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) and failure to use a designated lane (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [c]).
This appeal brings up for review the propriety of the admission at trial, as business records, of certified copies of the simulator solution certification and the calibration/maintenance record of the breath test instrument, issued by the New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center (FIC) and offered as part of the foundation requirements for proof of the results of the analysis of the alcohol content of defendant's blood (People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136 [1986]). Defendant argued below that the certifications, being testimonial in nature, are not admissible unless the certificates' preparers are available for cross-examination (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 68 [2004]).
Crawford v Washington overturned a well-established rule that permitted, in the Court's view, the unconstitutional extension of state law hearsay exceptions to statements that are "inherently" testimonial (cf. Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56 [1980]). Under the new rule, the relevant inquiry is whether the statements are testimonial in nature and therefore inadmissible absent defendant's opportunity to confront the declarants. Although deferring "for another day" a comprehensive definition of "testimonial," the Crawford court noted that "at a minimum" it applies to "prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations" (541 US at 68), and excludes statements "that by their nature [are] not testimonial—for example, business records" (541 US at 56).
Certain courts of this and other states invoke Crawford for the proposition that business records are so paradigmatic and venerable an exception to the hearsay rule as to remain unaffected by Confrontation Clause concerns (e.g. People v Grogan, 28 AD3d 579 [2006]; State v Dedman, 136 NM 561, 102 P3d 628 [2004]). However, as noted below, most courts, and in our view correctly, read Crawford to require scrutiny of the contours of state law business record jurisprudence to determine whether such a record, otherwise admissible as a business record under state law, nevertheless remains testimonial in nature, entitling an accused to confront its preparer (see Green v DeMarco, 11 Misc 3d 451, 462 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 2005] ["(I)t is apparent that there is a class of business records in New York that may run afoul of Crawford"]; see generally People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504 [2006]). Crawford's description of the class of statements that are inherently testimonial, while not exhaustive, suggests that the Confrontation Clause is implicated when "solemn declaration[s] . . . made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact" (541 US at 51) are obtained via a structured interrogation by the government or its agents, in a context wherein the declarant reasonably contemplates that the statement will be used at a subsequent judicial proceeding (541 US at 52). Construing Crawford's concerns to be primarily with "paradigmatic confrontation violations" (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 197 [2005]; see Crawford, 541 US at 60), New York courts "have tended toward . . . defining `testimonial' by the presence of the formalities that surround statements prepared for in-court use," the most salient of which is "structured questioning by an investigator" (People v Paul, 25 AD3d 165, 169-170 [2005]; see also People v Coleman, 16 AD3d 254, 254 [2005] []). Accordingly, in People v Pacer (6 NY3d 504 [2006], supra), which involved a charge of aggravated unlicensed operation, an element of which is proof of defendant's knowledge that his or her license is suspended, the Court of Appeals rejected the People's claim that an affidavit alleging the State's business procedure in mailing license suspension notices, prepared by a governmental agent for the prosecution's use at trial, remained admissible post-Crawford as a business record, because the affidavit amounted to an accusation of an element of the offense. In so holding, the Court contrasted those facts with a case where an affidavit was not prepared at the prosecutor's request for a particular investigation but was produced in the ordinary course of the affiant's duties. In People v Bradley (22 AD3d 33 [2005]), the Court rejected a Crawford challenge to the admission of incriminating responses to a police officer's preliminary investigatory inquiry at a crime scene which, the Court concluded, did not constitute a structured police interrogation. The Court stressed the utility, for Crawford analysis, of evaluating the interrogator's objective: "[W]here the purpose of the inquiry is to gather incriminating evidence against a particular individual, the [interrogator] is advancing a potential prosecution, and the response takes on a testimonial character" (id. at 42).
The foregoing compels the conclusion that the certifications at issue herein, which are otherwise admissible under New York's expansive application of the business exception to the hearsay rule, are not testimonial within the contemplation of Crawford. The certificates were prepared in the course of the certifier's routine official duties and "systematically" produced "in the conduct of [FIC] business" (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]) to fulfill an official mandate that the machines be maintained in working order. Although prepared, to an extent, in recognition of their necessity in the event of litigation and constituting a part of the foundational predicate for the admission of BAC test evidence, the certificates did not result from structured police questioning, they were not created at official request "to gather incriminating evidence against a particular individual" (People v Bradley, 22 AD3d at 42; see People v Foster, 27 NY2d 47, 52 [1970] [ ]; cf. People v Grogan, 28 AD3d 579 [2006], supra; People v Rogers, 8 AD3d 888 [2004]), and they did not constitute a direct accusation of an essential element of any offense (People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504 [2006], supra; see Green v DeMarco, 11 Misc 3d at 465-467 [] ; cf. People v Orpin, 8 Misc 3d 768 [Just Ct, Town of Irondequoit, Monroe County 2005]). Proof that a BAC testing machine functions properly may exonerate as well as incriminate and represents merely the application of an objective procedure which does not involve "the exercise of judgment and discretion, expressions of opinion, and making conclusions" (People v Nisonoff, 267 App Div 356, 369 [1944]).
In the overwhelming majority of state jurisdictions, the courts have reached this result on analogous grounds (see e.g. Commonwealth v Walther, 189 SW3d 570, 575 [Ky 2006] [, ]quoting State v Norman, 203 Or App 1, 6-7, 125 P3d 15, 18-19 [2005]; Rembusch v State, 836 NE2d 979, 982 [Ind Ct App 2005] ] ; see also Bohsancurt v Eisenberg, 212 Ariz 182, 129 P3d 471 [2006]; Luginbyhl v Commonwealth, 46 Va App 460, 618 SE2d 347 [2005]; Commonwealth v Verde, 444 Mass 279, 827 NE2d 701 [2005]; cf. Shiver v State, 900 So 2d 615 [Fla Ct App, 1st Dist 2005]). Thus, the court below properly ruled the herein certifications admissible as business records.
Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. The arresting officers' account of their personal experience and police training with respect to the effects of alcohol on behavior sufficed to enable the court below to properly evaluate their opinions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Lent
...v. Massachusetts, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 129 S.Ct. 2527 [2009] overruled this court's determination in People v. Lebrecht, 13 Misc.3d 45, 823 N.Y.S.2d 824 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2006] that a defendant's confrontation rights ( see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 ......
-
People v. Damato
...389; People v. Bradley, 22 A.D.3d 33, 42, 799 N.Y.S.2d 472, affd. 8 N.Y.3d 124, 830 N.Y.S.2d 1, 862 N.E.2d 79; People v. Lebrecht, 13 Misc.3d 45, 49, 823 N.Y.S.2d 824; cf. People v. Pacer, 6 N.Y.3d 504, 814 N.Y.S.2d 575, 847 N.E.2d 1149). The County Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. S......
-
State v. Fischer
... ... In People v. Lebrecht, 13 Misc.3d 45, 823 N.Y.S.2d 824 (2006), the court determined that statements in a simulator solution certificate were not testimonial ... ...
-
People v. McCombs
...592, 985 N.E.2d 903 [2013] ; People v. Lent, 29 Misc.3d 14, 908 N.Y.S.2d 804 [App.Term, 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2010] ; People v. Lebrecht, 13 Misc.3d 45, 823 N.Y.S.2d 824 [App.Term, 9th & 10th Jud.Dists.2006] ). Further, although the trial court deemed inadmissible on relevancy grounds defend......
-
Hearsay
...not testimonial. State v. Fischer , 726 N.W.2d 176 (Neb. 2007). Simulator solution certiicate is not testimonial. People v. Lebrecht , 823 N.Y.S.2d 824 (N.Y. Sup. 2006). Calibration/maintenance report and simulator solution certificate are not testimonial. State v. Norman , 125 P.3d 15 (Or.......
-
Hearsay
...not testimonial. State v. Fischer , 726 N.W.2d 176 (Neb. 2007). Simulator solution certificate is not testimonial. People v. Lebrecht , 823 N.Y.S.2d 824 (N.Y. Sup. 2006). Calibration/maintenance report and simulator solution certificate are not testimonial. State v. Norman , 125 P.3d 15 (Or......
-
Hearsay
...not testimonial. State v. Fischer , 726 N.W.2d 176 (Neb. 2007). Simulator solution certificate is not testimonial. People v. Lebrecht , 823 N.Y.S.2d 824 (N.Y. Sup. 2006). Calibration/maintenance report and simulator solution certificate are not testimonial. State v. Norman , 125 P.3d 15 (Or......
-
The test results said what? The post-Crawford admissibility of hearsay forensic evidence.
...other documents relating to Breathalyzer maintenance not prepared in the context of any particular case). (159.) See People v. Lebrecht, 823 N.Y.S.2d 824,827-28 (N.Y. App. Div. (160.) See State v. Norman, 125 P.3d 15, 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). (161.) See Luginbyhl v. Comm., 618 S.E.2d 347,354......