State v. Burnett

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court held that breath-test results obtained after a DataMaster machine produced a “standard out of range” error were admissible in the criminal DUI prosecution because the defendant’s objections concerned reliability and weight rather than the statutory foundation for admissibility. In the civil license-suspension proceeding, however, the defendant’s expert evidence was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that the test results were valid, reliable, and accurate. The court reversed and remanded the civil suspension judgment while affirming the denial of suppression in the criminal case.

Holdings

1. A breath-test result is admissible when the State establishes that the analysis was performed by an instrument meeting the Department of Health's performance standards and that the instrument met those standards while analyzing the sample. An officer's failure to follow training-manual procedures after an error message generally concerns the reliability and weight of the evidence, not admissibility, where the Department's performance standards do not incorporate those procedures.
2. A discrepancy between two breath-test results does not defeat admissibility absent a Department of Health requirement that the results fall within a specified range or evidence showing that the discrepancy demonstrates failure to meet the Department's performance standards.
3. Once the State establishes admissibility, the statutory presumption that the testing methods were valid and reliable and that the results were accurate may be rebutted by evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that reliability or accuracy was lacking in the particular case. Defendant's case-specific expert evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption.

Questions Presented

1. Whether breath-test results obtained after a DataMaster machine issued standard-out-of-range errors were inadmissible because the officer failed to follow training-manual procedures.
2. Whether the discrepancy between the two breath-test results defeated the foundation for admissibility.
3. Whether defendant presented sufficient case-specific evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the breath-testing methods were valid and reliable and the results accurate in the civil license-suspension proceeding.
4. Whether the reliability of the second test and compliance with the statutory second-test requirement should be determined on remand.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded