State v. Chun
Decision Date | 17 March 2008 |
Docket Number | A-96 September Term 2006. |
Citation | 194 N.J. 54,943 A.2d 114 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jane H. CHUN, Daria L. De Cicco, James R. Hausler, Angel Miralda, Jeffrey R. Wood, Anthony Anzano, Raj Desai, Peter Lieberwirth, Jeffrey Ling, Hussain Nawaz, Frederick Ogbutor, Peter Piasecki, Lara Slater, Christopher Salkowitz, Elina Tirado, David Walker, David Whitman and Jairo J. Yataco, Defendants-Respondents, and Mehmet Demirelli and Jeffrey Locastro, Defendant, and Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc., Intervenor. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Peter H. Lederman argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Lomurro, Davison, Eastman & Munoz, attorneys; Mr. Lederman and Andrew T. McDonald, Freehold, on the brief).
Jeffrey Evan Gold, Cherry Hill, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association (Lynn Fontaine Newsome, President, attorney; Ms. Newsome, Mr. Gold, Wayne J. Positan, Former President and Arnold N. Fishman, on the briefs).
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................... 120 I. Facts and Procedural History............................... 121 A. Certification to this Court............................. 121 B. Remand Hearings......................................... 122 II. Legislative Framework...................................... 123 III. How the Alcotest Works..................................... 126 A. Scientific and Physiological Framework.................. 126 1. Alcohol and Blood.................................... 126 2. Alcohol and Breath................................... 127 3. Differences Between Blood and Breath Tests........... 127 B. Operation of the Alcotest............................... 128 C. Test Administration and the Alcohol Influence Report.... 128 IV. Findings of the Special Master............................. 132 A. Initial Report.......................................... 132 B. Draeger's Role in the Proceedings....................... 133 C. Source Code Remand...................................... 133 V. Uncontested Issues......................................... 134 VI. Standards of Review........................................ 135 VII. Defendants' Challenges to Scientific Reliability........... 136 VIII. Disputed Findings and Recommendations...................... 137 A. Blood/Breath Ratio...................................... 138 B. Minimum Test Sample Criteria............................ 139 1. Scientific Data Concerning Breath Volume............. 139 2. Equal Protection and Lowered Breath Volume Requirement.......................................... 141 3. Application to Pending Prosecutions.................. 144 C. Breath Temperature Sensor............................... 144 D. Acceptable Tolerance Analysis........................... 147 1. Doubled Tolerance Range in Firmware version 3.11..... 147 2. Expert Testimony..................................... 149 3. Future Firmware Revisions............................ 150 4. Application to Pending Prosecutions.................. 151 IX. Source Code Remand...................................... 153 A. EC Readings and Fuel Cell Drift Algorithm............ 154 B. Weighted Averaging Algorithm......................... 156 C. Buffer Overflow Error................................ 157 D. Catastrophic Error Detection......................... 159 E. Overall Firmware Reliability......................... 160 X. Additional Firmware Recommendations..................... 160 XI. Requirements Prior to the Admissibility of Alcotest Evidence................................................ 161 A. Confrontation Clause Implications.................... 163 B. Application of Crawford v. Washington................ 165 1. Operator's Qualifications......................... 165 2. Foundational Documents............................ 166 3. Alcohol Influence Report Admissibility............ 168 XII. Conclusion............................................... 170
For decades, this Court has recognized that certain breath testing devices, commonly known as breathalyzers, are scientifically reliable and accurate instruments for determining blood alcohol concentration (BAC)1 and that drivers whose breathalyzer test results demonstrate the requisite statutorily-imposed BAC are guilty per se of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Although the Legislature has from time to time reduced the permissible BAC limits and has altered the penalties for this offense, and although we have required foundational proofs relating to the operation of the breathalyzer device as a precondition for admission of the breathalyzer test results into evidence, the accuracy and reliability of the breathalyzer itself has remained essentially unquestioned since our decision in Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 474 A.2d 1 (1984).
Nevertheless, in the intervening years, the devices have become technologically outdated, with the result that replacement parts are no longer available and the machines themselves, when they fail, cannot be repaired or replaced with like equipment. Faced with an increasingly difficult situation, the Attorney General's office began to consider alternate devices to use for breath-testing purposes. That process led to the decision by the Attorney General to select the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C (the Alcotest).2 Following its introduction into service in a pilot program in Pennsauken, the use of the Alcotest has been expanded to all but four of our counties. Its use and its capabilities, as a means to analyze breath samples with sufficient accuracy so that the results will be admissible into evidence to support a conviction, withstood an initial challenge arising from the Pennsauken program. Thereafter, the continued expansion of use of the Alcotest around the state resulted in a further challenge to its scientific reliability, which has been the essential focus of our inquiry here.
In our effort to analyze the reliability of the Alcotest, we have not only considered the questions concerning the scientific challenges to the machine, but we have also considered the underlying constitutional questions about the permissibility of its use in the context of a per se violation of the statute based solely on the results it reports, together with such safeguards and foundational requirements that will allow its admissibility in a DWI prosecution. We have been aided enormously in this task by the efforts of the Special Master for his analysis of the voluminous record created during the extended proceedings on remand.
In summary, we conclude that the Alcotest, utilizing New Jersey Firmware version 3.11, is generally scientifically reliable, but that certain modifications are required in order to permit its results to be admissible or to allow it to be utilized to prove a per se violation of the statute. Some of these conditions upon admissibility we impose as a matter of constitutional imperative, others as a matter of addressing certain of the device's mechanical and technical shortcomings that were revealed during the proceedings on remand. Within the framework for admissibility that we here establish, pending prosecutions should be able to proceed in an orderly and uniform fashion.
The matters that we have been called upon to consider are both many and varied; even among those issues on which the parties agree, we are required to create mechanisms for addressing the uses of Alcotest results generated in prosecutions undertaken prior to this analysis.
The Alcotest is a breath-testing device,3 manufactured and marketed by Draeger Safety Diagnostics Inc. (Draeger), which was first utilized in New Jersey as part of a pilot project in Pennsauken. The admissibility of the results derived from breath testing by this device was first challenged in 2003. See State v. Foley, 370 N.J.Super. 341, 851 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Savage v. State
...of St. Paul, Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150, 168 (Minn. 2012) (conducting both Frye and reliability analyses); State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 943 A.2d 114, 136 (2008) (applying Frye in criminal cases); Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC, 22 N.Y.3d 762, 986 N.Y.S.2d 389, 9 N.E.3d 884, 898–901 ......
-
State v. Rochat
...or procedures that underlie the scientific evidence." Ghigliotty, 463 N.J. Super. at 375, 232 A.3d 468 (quoting State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 91-92, 943 A.2d 114 (2008) ). Nor does it "require complete agreement over the accuracy of the test or the exclusion of the possibility of error." Harv......
-
Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesson
...N.Y.S.2d 884, 941 N.E.2d 727, 733 (2010); Grady v. Frito–Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546, 839 A.2d 1038, 1044 (2003); see also State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 943 A.2d 114, 136 (2008) (noting that the Frye standard is applicable in criminal cases); Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 597 S.E.2d......
-
State v. Hedgespeth
..."[I]f it is, then the fact of admissibility for purposes of the exceptions to the hearsay rules is insufficient." State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 138-39, 943 A.2d 114 (2008). "That is to say, if the evidence is testimonial, reliability as defined by the exceptions to the hearsay rules does not ......
-
Hearsay
...For Confrontation Clause purposes, A.A. was present at trial and defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine A.A. State v. Chin , 943 A.2d 114 (N.J. 2008). Foundational documents and alcohol inluence report generated by breath test device used to calibrate blood alcohol concentration did ......
-
Hearsay
...Clause purposes, A.A. was present at trial and defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine A.A. 6-359 HEARSAY §624.13 State v. Chin , 943 A.2d 114 (N.J. 2008). Foundational documents and alcohol influence report generated by breath test device used to calibrate blood alcohol concentration......
-
Table of cases
...v. Brunner (Underdahl II) , 767 N.W.2d 677 (2009), §6:17 State v. Carter , 810 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), §16:31 State v. Chun , 194 N.J. 54, 943 A.2d 114 (2008), §6:17 State v. Cordell , 34 S.W.3d 719 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d), §13:50 State v. Cullen , 195 S.W.3d 696 (Te......
-
Hearsay
...For Confrontation Clause purposes, A.A. was present at trial and defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine A.A. State v. Chin , 943 A.2d 114 (N.J. 2008). Foundational documents and alcohol influence report generated by breath test device used to calibrate blood alcohol concentration did......