Mark M. Muratore v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Public Safety

2014 OK 3 (Okla. 2014) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · January 28, 2014 · No. 111586

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the revocation of Mark Muratore's driver's license following an Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test. The Court held that certificates of calibration and gas analysis prepared by private entities were inadmissible hearsay without a proper exception or foundation, and that the Department of Public Safety failed to prove that the breath test was conducted on a properly maintained device. The Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's order vacating the revocation.

Holdings

  1. The certificates were not admissible under the public-records exception because they were prepared by private third parties rather than by the Board of Tests or another public official.
  2. The certificates were not admissible under the business-records exception because DPS failed to provide testimony or proper certification establishing the foundational requirements of the exception.
  3. The certificates were independently inadmissible because they did not establish that the Intoxilyzer 8000 or gas canister was functioning properly at the time of Muratore's arrest and test.
  4. DPS failed to meet its threshold burden of proving all facts necessary to sustain the revocation because the Board of Tests had not implemented rules governing maintenance of the Intoxilyzer 8000.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the manufacturer's calibration certificate and the gas supplier's certificate of analysis were admissible under the public-records or business-records exceptions to the hearsay rule.
  2. Whether the certificates were relevant to proving that the Intoxilyzer 8000 and its reference gas were functioning properly at the time of Muratore's test.
  3. Whether the Department met its burden in the district court to prove all facts necessary to sustain the driver's-license revocation, including that a valid breath test was performed on a properly maintained device.
  4. Whether the district court's decision to vacate the revocation was supported by the evidence.

Disposition

vacated

Cases Cited (18)

  • Appeal of Dungan, 1984 OK 21, 681 P.2d 750(followed)
  • Derrick v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety, 2007 OK CIV APP 56, 164 P.3d 250(followed)
  • Smith v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety, 1984 OK 16, 680 P.2d 365(followed)
  • Westerman v. State, 1974 OK CR 151, 525 P.2d 1359(followed)
  • Hedrick v. The Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, 2013 OK 98(followed)
  • Kerr v. Clary, 2001 OK 90, 37 P.3d 841(followed)
  • Hollis v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety, 2008 OK 31, 183 P.3d 996(followed)
  • Weathers v. Fulgenzi, 1994 OK 119, 884 P.2d 538(followed)
  • Hadley v. Ross, 1944 OK 366, 154 P.2d 939(followed)
  • Matter of W.D., 1985 OK 65, 709 P.2d 1037(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…