Certificate Excluded in Massachusetts Drug Case
In another Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts scenario, (Commonwealth v. Kevin Johnson) the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a drug conviction where a drug certificate was introduced without the testimony of the analyst who produced it testifying. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such certificates are considered 'testimonial statements' and, subject to a narrow exception, criminal defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine the person making them.
In the case of Commonwealth v. Parmenter, the SJC will decide whether the above-cited principle applies in a Massachusetts OUI case where blood was drawn and a laboratory report regarding alcohol content was excluded, because the prosecution failed to produce the witness(s) who prepared the report.
The principles established by Melendez-Diaz might also be used to exclude breathalyzer test results in Masschusetts OUI cases. In order to be admissible, both the breathalyzer and the simulator unit, which is attached to the breathalyzer, must be inspected and certified by the Office of Alcohol Testing of the Massachusetts State Police. Absent an up to date certification, Massachusetts DUI law renders breathalyzer results inadmissible. Challenges could me made regarding the attempted admission of breathalyzer records without the testimony of the state police analyst who certified the device.
