ERIN H. McCOY, Defendant Below-Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee
Submitted February 25, 2014
Motion for Reargument filed 4/17/14
Case Closed April 30, 2014.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. No. 0909009694.
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
Henry duPont Ridgely, Justice
On this 3rd day of April 2014, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Defendant-Below/Appellant Erin McCoy appeals from a bench trial conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. McCoy raises two claims on appeal. She argues that the State failed to properly establish a foundation for the admission of an intoxilyzer calibration certification in violation of Rule 803(6) of the Delaware Rules of Evidence. She further contends that the State failed to establish that officers observed McCoy for an uninterrupted twenty-minute period as required by our decision in Clawson v. State . We find no merit to McCoy's claims and affirm.
(2) In September 2009, McCoy was arrested for driving under the influence and failure to drive in the proper lane. She was transported back to the police station where she consented to an intoxilyzer test. At the station, Corporal Jerry Huber commenced the intoxilyzer test by observing McCoy for a continuous twenty-minute period. This period began at 2:06 a.m. and lasted until 2:30 a.m., when Corporal Huber inserted the intoxilyzer card into the machine. He then completed a series of three internal calibration tests on the intoxilyzer machine and ordered McCoy to blow into the machine. The intoxilyzer test determined that McCoy had a blood-alcohol content of 0.087, above the legal limit of 0.08.
(3) McCoy was charged with driving under the influence and failure to drive in the proper lane in the Court of Common Pleas. The State filed a Motion in Limine on the admissibility of the intoxilyzer calibration logs. The State presented Corporal Huber as an otherwise qualified witness to authenticate the calibration logs. The trial court denied the State's motion, ruling that Corporal Huber was not a qualified witness under D.R.E. 803(6). The State appealed this ruling to the Superior Court under 10 Del. C . § 9902(b). The Superior Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas and remanded the case for trial. Following a bench trial, the trial judge found McCoy guilty ...