Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. SCWC-12-0001121, Thursday, December 17, 2015, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAYMOND S. DAVIS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioner:

Phyllis J. Hironaka and Pamela I. Lundquist, Deputy Public Defenders

Attorney for Respondent:

James M. Anderson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/06/15.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This case concerns the admissibility of sworn statements of an Intoxilyzer Supervisor under the Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) and under the Hawai`i and United States Constitutions.

Raymond S. Davis was arrested and charged with the offense of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII), in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes § 291E-61(a)(3) (2012). At Davis’s bench trial in district court, the State sought to admit into evidence Intoxilyzer 8000 Accuracy Test Supervisor’s Sworn Statements, dated February 29, 2012 and March 16, 2012 (sworn statements), to show the calibration results indicating that the instrument was working properly “per the sworn statement” on those dates. Defense counsel objected to the admission of these documents based on, inter alia, lack of foundation, relevance, hearsay, and the Confrontation Clause of the Hawai`i and U.S. Constitutions. Over objection, the district court admitted the sworn statements into evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the district court found Davis guilty of the offense charged, and Davis appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).

In its Summary Disposition Order, the ICA ruled that the district court did not err in admitting the sworn statements because they were admissible as self-authenticating public records under HRE Rules 902(4) and 803(b)(8), and their admission did not violate Davis’s constitutional right to confrontation. Accordingly, the ICA affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Davis filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari in which he argues that the ICA erred in determining that the district court properly admitted the sworn statements because the State failed to establish a proper foundation and failed to demonstrate their relevance as to how they tended to prove the Intoxilyzer 8000 was working properly. Davis also contends that the sworn statements were improperly admitted because they violated his confrontation rights under the Hawai`i Constitution. Finally, Davis argues that because the sworn statements were improperly admitted, evidence that his BAC was above .08 was also improperly admitted, and therefore there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for OVUII.