State v. Rumler
Decision Date | 13 April 2005 |
Citation | 110 P.3d 115,199 Or. App. 32 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Victor Charles RUMLER, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Susan Howe, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Jill Smith, Assistant Attorney General.
Thomas Ifversen, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Kahn & Ifversen, Attorneys, L.L.P.
Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and LINDER1 and ORTEGA, Judges.
The state appeals from an order suppressing, inter alia, the results of an Intoxilyzer test in a prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). ORS 813.010.2 The trial court concluded that the state had failed to establish a sufficient foundation for admissibility under ORS 813.160(1)(b) because, at the time of the suppression hearing, the officer who had administered the Intoxilyzer test had no present recollection of administering that test. The trial court so concluded, notwithstanding that the state had proffered the contents of an Intoxilyzer checklist, which the officer testified he had accurately completed at the time that he had administered the test. The state now contends that the trial court's ruling was erroneous primarily because, regardless of the officer's lack of specific recollection at the time of the suppression hearing, (1) under OEC 803(5), the checklist that the officer completed contemporaneously was sufficient substantive evidence of compliance with the prescribed Intoxilyzer protocol; and (2) in all events, the officer's testimony that he invariably adhered to the prescribed procedures was sufficient evidence of "habit" under OEC 406. We conclude that the state failed to preserve either of those contentions before the trial court, see State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335, 15 P.3d 22 (2000), and we reject the state's other, related arguments without discussion. Accordingly, we affirm.
The material facts are undisputed. On October 3, 2002, Washington County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Rockwell stopped defendant on suspicion of DUII. After arresting defendant, Rockwell administered an Intoxilyzer 5000 test to defendant, completing a checklist as he did so. The Intoxilyzer test result indicated a .11 percent blood alcohol level. Fourteen months later, in December 2003, the trial court held a pretrial hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, among other evidence, the Intoxilyzer test results. Rockwell testified that he had administered the Intoxilyzer test and that he had simultaneously completed the checklist. With respect to the particular process he had followed, Rockwell testified that (1) he had sat facing defendant for the entire 15-minute preadministration observation period; (2) before beginning the observation period, he had checked the inside of defendant's mouth; (3) he had not seen defendant ingest anything, or vomit or regurgitate, during the observation period; and (4) at the end of the observation period, defendant had confirmed that he had not ingested anything or vomited or regurgitated. The state then offered, and the court admitted without objection, the checklist, which stated, in part:
OPERATIONAL CHECKLIST [BAD TEXT] 1 Pre-Test Requirement: The operator is certain that the Subject has not taken anything by mouth (drinking, smoking, eating, taking medication, etc.), vomited, or regurgitated liquid from stomach into mouth. for at least fifteen minutes before taking the test. Observed by Rockwell START TIME: 0144 STOP TIME: 0202 [BAD TEXT] 2. ASSURE THAT THE "POWER" SWITCH IS ON AND THE INSTRUMENT IS OUT OF THE "NOT READY" STAGE. [BAD TEXT] 3. PUSH "START TEST" BUTTON TO lNtT[ATF TESTING SEQUENCE [BAD TEXT] 4. INSERT TEST RECORD CARD [BAD TEXT] 5. AFTER INSTRUCTING THE SUBJECT ON HOW TO GIVE A PROPER BREATH SAMPLE, AND HAVING MET THE 15 MINUTE PRE-TEST REQUIREMENT TAKE BREATH SAMPLE WHEN "PLEASE BLOW" APPEARS ON DISPLAY. [BAD TEXT] 6. REMOVE TEST RECORD CARD WITH PRINTOUT OF TEST RESULTS.
The state also offered, and the court admitted without objection, the implied consent form that defendant had signed.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked whether Rockwell's testimony was based on his present recollection:
The prosecutor, on redirect, elicited testimony that Rockwell generally remembered being in the Intoxilyzer room with defendant and "going through the process." The redirect examination continued:
The trial court then ruled that, although Rockwell's testimony was "completely credible," the Intoxilyzer 5000 test results would be suppressed. The court explained its ruling as follows:
The state did not take issue with the court's reasoning or ruling. In particular, the prosecutor did not invoke OEC 803(5) or assert generally that, regardless of Rockwell's lack of present recollection, the content of the Intoxilyzer checklist was sufficient substantive evidence, as "past recollection recorded," that the prescribed Intoxilyzer protocol had been followed in this instance. Nor did the prosecutor invoke OEC 406 specifically or make any reference to Rockwell's testimony constituting substantively sufficient evidence of "habit."
In particular, the state asserts that this case is indistinguishable from State v. Scally, 92 Or.App. 149, 758 P.2d 365 (1988), in which we held that a police officer's reading of his report of the circumstances of a DUII arrest was admissible under OEC 803(5). Second, the state argues that Rockwell's testimony was sufficient evidence of "habit" under OEC 406, which provides:
The state asserts that Rockwell's testimony that he invariably followed the required Intoxilyzer protocol is sufficient to establish that he did so in this case.
Defendant does not dispute that Rockwell's testimony on redirect examination satisfied...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Spears, 050432456; A132447.
...error immediately, if correction is warranted"? Id. at 343, 15 P.3d 22. Or, as we phrased the pragmatic inquiry in State v. Rumler, 199 Or.App. 32, 41, 110 P.3d 115 (2005), "[i]f we were to reverse based on [appellant's] argument, would the trial judge feel `blindsided' by our ruling?" (Int......
-
Boardmaster Corporation v. Jackson County
...alerted the trial judge and opposing counsel to the substance of the position that is advanced on appeal."); cf. State v. Rumler, 199 Or.App. 32, 41, 110 P.3d 115 (2005) (describing Wyatt-driven preservation inquiry: "If we were to reverse based on [appellant's] argument, would the trial ju......
-
Spirit Partners, Lp v. Stoel Rives Llp
...`can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.'" State v. Rumler, 199 Or.App. 32, 41, 110 P.3d 115 (2005) (quoting State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335, 343, 15 P.3d 22 Although plaintiff now asserts that the trial court "ignored" New ......
-
Rosekrans v. Class Harbor Ass'n, Inc.
...raised and preserved its present contention before the trial court. Wyatt, 331 Or. at 344-46, 15 P.3d 22; see also State v. Rumler, 199 Or.App. 32, 39, 110 P.3d 115 (2005) (appellate court "must determine sua sponte whether error was The association contends that it preserved its contention......