ILNews

Ticket can't constitute 'testimonial hearsay'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Because a chemical breath-test evidence ticket is a mechanically produced readout that can’t be considered “testimonial hearsay” under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Indiana Court of Appeals held a man’s Sixth Amendment rights weren’t violated when the equipment technician didn’t testify at his drunk-driving trial.  

Timothy Cranston was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving and failed every field sobriety test. He was taken to jail and given a chemical breath test using a blood alcohol concentration Datamaster with keyboard. He blew a 0.15 and was eventually convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated with an alcohol concentration equivalent to 0.15 or greater.

The officer who arrested Cranston and administered the test testified during the trial, and an official certificate of compliance verifying routine inspection of the machine was introduced. The director at the Department of Toxicology who signed the certificate didn’t testify.

Cranston argued this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. He claimed the ticket prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is “testimonial” evidence subject to the Confrontation Clause.

But Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), applies only to statements qualifying as hearsay. Because mechanically generated data aren’t hearsay statements in the first place, the prevailing view from other jurisdictions is that they can’t constitute testimonial hearsay for purposes of Crawford and the Confrontation Clause, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik in Timothy Cranston v. State of Indiana, No. 29A02-1003-CR-374
 
“Mechanically-generated or computerized information may constitute hearsay when incorporating a certain degree of human input and/or interpretation,” she wrote. “But the B.A.C. Datamaster, for example, while requiring administrative input from the test operator and a breath sample from the test subject, calculates and prints a subject’s blood alcohol concentration through a mechanical process involving no material human intervention.”

The appellate court concurred with other jurisdictions that have held the evidence ticket produced by a chemical breath-test machine isn’t testimonial hearsay subject to Crawford and the Sixth Amendment. It also disagreed with the holding in Napier v. State, 820 N.E.2d 144, 150-151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), that finds the evidence ticket inadmissible on Sixth Amendment grounds, implying that tickets constitute testimonial hearsay. Neither the test operator nor any other live witnesses testified at Napier’s trial unlike Cranston’s trial where the officer who administered the test was a witness.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT