State v. Villeneuve
| Decision Date | 03 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009–011.,2009–011. |
| Citation | 999 A.2d 284,160 N.H. 342 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Wayne VILLENEUVE. |
Michael A. Delaney, attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.
Law Office of Leonard D. Harden, of Lancaster (Leonard D. Harden on the brief and orally), for the defendant.
The defendant, Wayne Villeneuve, was tried in the Lancaster District Court (Sargent, J.) and found guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. See RSA 265–A:2 (Supp.2009). He appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously: (1) admitted a letter in violation of his Confrontation Clause rights; (2) admitted the results of his breath test; and (3) concluded that the State did not commit a discovery violation. We affirm.
The record reveals the following. In the early morning of July 7, 2007, Officer Blaine Hall of the Northumberland Police saw the defendant driving toward him. The defendant stipulated that he was speeding. His vehicle crossed over the center line, so that one of its headlights was in Officer Hall's lane, and Officer Hall moved to the right to avoid a collision as the defendant passed him. Officer Hall stopped the defendant, identified himself, and told the defendant that he was being stopped for speeding and crossing the center line. The defendant responded, "[Y]eah, I've had a couple beers." The defendant's eyes were red and watery, and Officer Hall smelled the odor of alcohol. After the defendant performed field sobriety tests, Officer Hall arrested him for driving under the influence. Subsequently, the defendant agreed to take a breath test, and the results revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of .15.
At trial, the defendant introduced evidence from two experts: Dr. Lance Platt, who testified about field sobriety tests, and Thomas Workman, who testified about the type of breath testing instrument used in New Hampshire. This instrument is a modified version of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. Unlike the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, the New Hampshire instrument has additional components, including "the ability to attach a ... tox trap [‘a small expandable, like a balloon which permits the machine to capture the last part of the breath that's supplied by a subject’] to the back of the device." New Hampshire is the only state that retains a breath sample in this manner. See Opinion of the Justices (Breath Test Samples), 160 N.H. 180, ––––, 2 A.3d 1102 (2010). As a result, the New Hampshire instrument has an extra solenoid, or switch, not present on other versions. Workman testified that these added features require additional software, wiring, and circuits.
Although the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is listed in the Conforming Products List in the Code of Federal Regulations, because of the differences described above, Workman opined that the New Hampshire instrument is not listed and should be recertified, as the differences could "potentially" affect its accuracy. Nancy Mobile, an expert employed by the New Hampshire Department of Safety, testified that although the New Hampshire instrument differs from the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, the differences do not affect its accuracy. Therefore, for all relevant purposes, the New Hampshire instrument is the same as the Intoxilyzer 5000EN; it does not need separate approval by government agencies and it is approved for use in New Hampshire. The State also introduced a letter from Arthur Flores, a former employee of the United States Department of Transportation, who opined that, because the differences in the New Hampshire instrument did not affect its accuracy or precision, "the 5000 EN on the [Conforming Products List] is identical to the instrument used by New Hampshire."
The defendant first argues that the trial court erroneously admitted the Flores letter because the State failed to provide it to him in discovery, and its admission violated his Confrontation Clause rights.
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review. State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379, 386, 986 A.2d 488 (2009). Ordinarily, trial courts should have an opportunity to rule upon issues and correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court. State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 417, 923 A.2d 1068 (2007). The objection must state explicitly the specific ground of objection.
Ericson, 159 N.H. at 386, 986 A.2d 488.
The State argues that the defendant expressly waived any objection to the admission of the letter. We agree. Following Mobile's testimony, the trial court marked the Flores letter as an exhibit and defense counsel stated, "I don't have any objection to the letter." Accordingly, the defendant did not preserve his arguments about the Flores letter for our review. See id.
Next, the defendant argues that the trial court erroneously admitted the results of his breath test because the breath testing device used in New Hampshire, a version of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, is not on the list of conforming products for breath alcohol measurement devices as required by New Hampshire Administrative Rules, Saf–C 6302.01 and RSA 265–A:5, IV. The State argues that the evidence supported the trial court's ruling that the New Hampshire instrument was properly certified.
We review the trial court's decision on the admissibility of evidence for an unsustainable exercise of discretion. State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 694, 867 A.2d 420 (2005). To meet this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. Id.
The defendant moved to exclude his breath test results. The trial court concluded that "the chance of inaccuracy of the breath test on the machine New Hampshire uses is speculative, at best," and that "the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN is properly certified." In its order, the trial court stated:
(Brackets omitted.)
The trial court concluded that the Flores letter "conclusively states that the sample capture feature of the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN, from the Department of Transportation's perspective, does not render an inaccurate result because the New Hampshire process was actually ‘checked and debugged.’ " The court determined that the defendant had failed to "make even a showing by a preponderance of the evidence" that, as the defendant's expert suggested, "there might be the possibility of an electronic and power problem which might cause an inaccurate test."
We cannot conclude that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by admitting the results of the breath test. As the fact-finder, the trial court was entitled to weigh the expert testimony and evidence and come to its own conclusion regarding the accuracy of the breath test results. See State v. Whittaker, 158 N.H. 762, 773, 973 A.2d 299 (2009) (). The trial court concluded that the defendant "did not make even a showing by a preponderance of the evidence as to" Workman's conclusion that the additional solenoid could have caused an inaccuracy in his breath test results.
Moreover, we disagree with the defendant's argument that the instrument used to test his breath did not comply with Saf–C 6302.01 and RSA 265–A:5, IV. When construing a statute, we first examine the language found in the statute and where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to words used. Appeal of Garrison Place Real Estate Inv. Trust, 159 N.H. 539, 542, 986 A.2d 670 (2009). We apply the same principles of construction in interpreting administrative rules. Vector Mktg. Corp. v. N.H. Dep't of Revenue Admin., 156 N.H. 781, 783, 942 A.2d 1261 (2008) (). When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indications of legislative intent. Appeal of Garrison Place, 159 N.H. at 542, 986 A.2d 670. Courts can neither ignore the plain language of the legislation nor add words which the lawmakers did not see fit to include. Appeal of Astro Spectacular, 138 N.H. 298, 300, 639 A.2d 249 (1994). We construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and avoid an absurd or unjust result. Residents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Etienne
...impose such a requirement, for to do so would be to add words that the legislature did not see fit to include. See State v. Villeneuve, 160 N.H. 342, 347, 999 A.2d 284 (2010) (court will not add words that the lawmakers did not see fit to include). Furthermore, we can be confident that the ......
- State v. Van Winkle
-
State v. Furgal
...demonstrate that the trial court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." State v. Villeneuve, 160 N.H. 342, 345, 999 A.2d 284 (2010). We conclude that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in finding that the prior altercation was not rel......
-
State v. Keenan
...236, 168 A.3d 1145 (2017). We apply the same principles of construction when interpreting administrative rules. State v. Villeneuve, 160 N.H. 342, 347, 999 A.2d 284 (2010). On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erroneously treated "controlled" as a synonym for the term "drive......