State v. Beeler
| Docket Number | Docket: Cum-21-254 |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2022 |
| Citation | 281 A.3d 637,2022 ME 47 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Joshua BEELER |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Rory A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law LLC, York, for appellant Joshua Beeler
Johnathan T. Sahrbeck, District Attorney, Alvah J. Chalifour, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District Two, Portland, for appellee State of Maine
Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE JJ., and HUMPHREY, A.R.J.*
[¶1] Joshua Beeler appeals from a judgment of conviction of criminal OUI with one previous OUI offense (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(B)(1), (5)(B) (2022), and violation of condition of release (Class E), 15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A) (2022), entered by the trial court (Cumberland County, Warren, J. ) after a jury trial. Beeler contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his breath test result pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. § 2431 (2018)1 because (1) the State's witnesses did not have personal knowledge of whether the simulator solution used in the Intoxilyzer was of an appropriate quality for producing a reliable test result and (2) the State did not offer evidence that the simulator solution bore a statement of the manufacturer or the Department of Health and Human Services. Beeler further contends that his right to confrontation was violated by the admission of the breath test certificate and by the admission of testimony about the stamp of approval affixed to the Intoxilyzer and the statement of the Department indicating that the simulator solution was of the composition and quality stated. We disagree with Beeler's contentions and affirm the judgment.2 Because Beeler's sentence does not meet the mandatory minimum requirements for a conviction of criminal OUI with one previous OUI offense, however, we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
[¶2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury rationally could have found the following facts. See State v. Athayde , 2022 ME 41, ¶ 2, 277 A.3d 387.
[¶3] On March 27, 2019, at approximately 10:51 p.m., a state trooper observed a vehicle with its hazard lights on stopped on the side of the northbound ramp of I-295 in Brunswick. When the trooper stopped to determine whether the motorist needed assistance, Beeler exited the vehicle from the driver's side and approached the trooper. The trooper observed that Beeler was unsteady on his feet, did not appear to be "in control of all [his] faculties," and was wearing sunglasses, which the trooper thought was "odd." The trooper also detected an odor of intoxicants coming from Beeler. Based on these observations and Beeler's difficulty in completing field sobriety tests, the trooper formed the opinion that Beeler was under the influence of intoxicants and arrested him. Beeler submitted to a breath test at the Cumberland County Jail. His breath test result was .15 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
[¶4] On May 6, 2019, Beeler was charged by complaint with one count of criminal OUI with one previous OUI offense and one count of violation of condition of release. See 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(B)(1) ; 15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A). He pleaded not guilty. Prior to trial, Beeler made a timely demand pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. § 2431(2)(D) for a qualified witness to testify as to the materials used in producing his breath test result.
[¶5] The court held a two-day jury trial on July 19 and 20, 2021, on the OUI charge.3 The State's evidence consisted of testimony of the trooper, testimony of the chemist from the Department of Health and Human Services who manages the state laboratory's breath testing program, a portion of a video from the cruiser's recording system, and the certified breath test result.
[¶6] The trooper testified that he is a certified Intoxilyzer operator and that he followed proper breath testing procedures. He further testified that a sticker from the Department indicating that the instrument had been approved for use was affixed to the Intoxilyzer used to measure Beeler's breath alcohol.
[¶7] The chemist testified extensively about the functioning of the Intoxilyzer, procedures at the state laboratory, and Beeler's breath test. She testified that the Department requires that every Intoxilyzer in the state be tested semiannually. If that testing shows that an Intoxilyzer is accurate and reliable, then the instrument is approved and a sticker with the approval date is affixed to the Intoxilyzer. She testified that Beeler's breath test was performed on an Intoxilyzer that had been loaned to the Cumberland County Jail by the state laboratory and that the instrument had been approved before it was put into service.4 When the Intoxilyzer was returned to the laboratory sometime after Beeler's breath test, it passed all calibration checks.
[¶8] The chemist testified that before an Intoxilyzer takes a person's breath sample, the Intoxilyzer runs a series of internal diagnostic tests. One of these tests is a calibration check that uses a breath simulator that contains a solution with a known concentration of ethanol. Intoxilyzers approved for use in Maine use a known concentration of ".09," which is unique.5 The .09 value is programmed into the Intoxilyzer at the laboratory and is password protected. If the Intoxilyzer is working properly, then it will read the concentration of the solution to within .01 of the known value of .09. See 10-144 C.M.R. ch. 269, § 1(2) (effective Sept. 1, 2010). If the Intoxilyzer does not pass the calibration check, then the Intoxilyzer will not allow the breath test to proceed.
[¶9] The chemist testified that the state laboratory produces the solution used in the breath test simulator and that its production requires technical knowledge, laboratory grade glassware, and laboratory grade water. Each bottle of solution is affixed with a label indicating that it was approved by the Department. The solution is provided to Maine law enforcement agencies that request it. The law enforcement agency's site coordinator—a person selected by the agency to perform tasks related to the Intoxilyzer—changes the simulator solution in the Intoxilyzer as needed. The chemist testified that she did not have any personal knowledge of what solution was used to generate Beeler's test result.
[¶10] Upon reviewing each step in the breath testing sequence as reflected on Beeler's breath test certificate, the chemist opined that the Intoxilyzer passed all internal diagnostic tests and produced a valid test report. The State offered the breath test certificate, and the court admitted it over Beeler's objection. At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the OUI charge, and the court entered a judgment of conviction on the complaint as charged.6 Beeler timely appeals.
[¶11] Beeler argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his breath test result because the State failed to meet the requirements of 29-A M.R.S. § 2431. He invokes two subsections of the statute. First, Beeler contends that the State failed to satisfy section 2431(2)(C)(2) because neither the trooper nor the chemist had personal knowledge of whether the "proper solution" was used in the Intoxilyzer. Second, Beeler contends that the State failed to satisfy section 2431(2)(K) because neither the trooper nor the chemist testified that the simulator solution "bore a statement" of the Department establishing "that the materials were of the composition and quality stated."
[¶12] "We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo." State v. Tozier , 2015 ME 57, ¶ 6, 115 A.3d 1240. "When interpreting a statute, we look first to the plain meaning in order to discern legislative intent, viewing the relevant provision in the context of the entire statutory scheme to generate a harmonious result." Id. (quotation marks omitted). We review a trial court's "admission of evidence over an objection for lack of foundation for an abuse of discretion" and review the trial court's "underlying factual findings for clear error." State v. Williamson , 2017 ME 108, ¶ 17, 163 A.3d 127 (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Poulin , 1997 ME 160, ¶ 13, 697 A.2d 1276 ().
1. For a breath test result to be admissible, the State need only make a foundational showing that the test result is reliable and need not offer evidence establishing the elements listed in section 2431(2)(C).
[¶13] Title 29-A M.R.S. § 2431 sets forth evidentiary rules governing the admission of breath test results in OUI cases. The statute provides that "[a] person qualified to operate a self-contained, breath-alcohol testing apparatus"—such as an Intoxilyzer—"may issue a certificate stating the results of the analysis." 29-A M.R.S. § 2431(2)(B). The certificate, when duly signed and sworn, is prima facie evidence that, inter alia, the "[m]aterials used in the taking of the [breath sample] were of a quality appropriate for the purpose of producing reliable test results." Id. § 2431(2)(C)(2). Unless the defendant timely requests that a qualified witness testify to the matters of which the certificate constitutes prima facie evidence, the certificate may be admitted as prima facie evidence of the defendant's alcohol level without the need for testimony. Id. § 2431(2)(C), (D), (G) ; Tozier , 2015 ME 57, ¶ 7, 115 A.3d 1240.
[¶14] When a defendant requests a qualified witness, however, as Beeler did, the certificate no longer constitutes prima facie evidence of the matters set forth in section 2431(2)(C) that are identified by the defendant in his demand. 29-A M.R.S. § 2431(2)(D). Instead, the State must establish the reliability of the test result through witness testimony. See Tozier , 2015 ME 57, ¶ 12, 115 A.3d 1240 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial