DWAYNE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dwayne Williams appealed his jury conviction for cocaine trafficking, cannabis possession, and DUI. The court affirmed the drug convictions but reversed the DUI conviction because the breath test affidavit was introduced by someone other than the technician who performed the test, violating Crawford v. Washington's confrontation clause requirements.
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences for cocaine trafficking and cannabis possession but reversed the DUI conviction. The breath test affidavit constitutes testimonial hearsay inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington absent the declarant's unavailability and the defendant's prior opportunity to cross-examine.
[1] Affidavits containing observations and procedures of a breath test technician in administering a breath test constitute testimonial evidence subject to the Confrontation…
[2] The admission of testimonial hearsay in a criminal trial without the declarant being available for cross-examination violates the Sixth Amendment.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In Crawford, the Supreme Court conditioned the admissibility of testimonial hearsay on the unavailability of the declarant and the defendant's prior opportunity to cross-examine.”
Establishes the constitutional standard for admitting testimonial hearsay under the Confrontation Clause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted by jury of trafficking in cocaine, possession of cannabis, and DUI. He was sentenced to five years for cocaine trafficking and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dui cases and more on FLexlaw
CASE, JAMES R., Associate Judge.
Dwayne Williams appeals his conviction by a jury and sentences for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cannabis, and DUI. He was sentenced to five years’ prison for the cocaine conviction and to time served for the other two offenses. We affirm the convictions and sentences for cocaine trafficking and cannabis possession without further comment but reverse the misdemeanor DUI conviction.
Williams’ conviction for DUI resulted from the introduction into evidence of a breath test affidavit by a person other than the person who actually administered the test and prepared the affidavit. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the Supreme Court overruled the reliability test previously established in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), for determining the admissibility of testimonial hearsay. In Crawford, the Supreme Court conditioned the admissibility of testimonial hearsay on the unavailability of the declarant and the defendant’s prior opportunity to cross-examine. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68,124 S.Ct. 1354. Relying on Crawford, this court held in Johnson v. State, 929 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), review granted, 924 So. 2d 810 (Fla.2006), that an FDLE lab report prepared pursuant to police investigation and offered to establish an element of a crime was testimonial hearsay and inadmissible in the absence of establishing the Crawford conditions. We rejected the State’s argument that the report should be admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court, Johnson, 929 So. 2d at 8-9; see also Belvin v. State, 922 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 928 So. 2d 336 (Fla.2006) (holding en banc that the portions of the breath test affidavit pertaining to the technician’s procedures and observations constitute testimonial evidence, and were inadmissible under Crawford).
In this case, we decline the State’s invitation to recede from our decision in Johnson, and reverse Williams’ DUI conviction. Since the issue is substantially similar to that certified in Johnson, we certify the following question to the supreme court as an issue of great public importance:
DOES ADMISSION OF A BREATH TEST AFFIDAVIT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AND CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 [124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177] (2004), WHEN THE TECHNICIAN WHO PERFORMED BREATH TEST DOES NOT TESTIFY?
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
SALCINES and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Belvin, 986 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 2008)…tify. The court reasoned that “[ajpplying Crawford, Florida courts have [*524] consistently held that records such as the FDLE report before us are testimonial in nature.” Id. at 1192. In two other cases from the Second District, Williams v. State, 933 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Sobota v. State, 933 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the court confronted the same issue and found that admission of the reports without the testimony of the preparer violated the Confrontation Clause. Both cases were reverse…
-
State v. Johnson, 982 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2008)…h as breath test affidavits and blood tests results, under the business record exception to the hearsay rule where the report was admitted without the testimony of the preparer of the record. When confronted with the same issue in Williams v. State, 933 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Sobota v. State, 933 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the Second District applied its holding from Johnson. The court found admission of the reports without the testimony of the preparer violated the Confrontation Clause and r…
Authorities Cited
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Belvin v. State, 922 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Johnson v. State, 929 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- State v. Contreras, 924 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2006)
- State v. Belvin, 928 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 2006)