Wilson v. Zolin

California Court of Appeal Sep 17, 1992 No. F017609Published

Before: Vartabedian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a police officer's sworn report of a blood-alcohol test is admissible under the official record hearsay exception and that the DMV may rely on the presumption that the officer regularly performed their duty to establish the report's trustworthiness. Because the driver failed to present evidence to rebut this presumption, the DMV's suspension of the driver's license was proper.

Issues

Whether a police officer's sworn report regarding a blood-alcohol test is admissible as an official record under Evidence Code section 1280.
Whether the DMV may rely on the Evidence Code section 664 presumption of official duty to establish the trustworthiness of a blood-alcohol test report.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that, contrary to the superior court’s ruling, the documentary evidence in question was admissible; based on the totality of the evidence, the suspension of Wilson’s license by DMV was proper.”

“Pursuant to Evidence Code section 664, the DMV can rely upon the rebuttable presumption that the officer regularly performed his duty.”

“Wilson presented no evidence that would burden DMV with presenting foundational evidence establishing the trustworthiness of the chemical test result. The Evidence Code section 664 presumption was not overcome.”

Opinion

VARTABEDIAN, J.

California Highway Patrol Officer R. C. Madrigal determined that Raymond William Wilson, who had suffered a single-car

[1106]

accident, had driven with a blood-alcohol concentration of .13 percent. Madrigal submitted his sworn report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV); the report stated the blood-alcohol result was based upon the result generated by the breath testing instrument used by Madrigal to test Wilson.

Under the “administrative per se” provisions of the Vehicle Code,

DMV suspended Wilson’s driving privilege; that determination was sustained during DMV’s internal administrative review. Wilson then contested the suspension at an administrative hearing. The same sworn documents prepared by Officer Madrigal constituted the evidence supporting the suspension. Wilson objected that this evidence was hearsay and lacked foundation. The objection was overruled. Although he testified regarding hardships that would result from the suspension, Wilson presented no evidence contrary to the validity of his arrest and the accompanying test result. DMV sustained its earlier findings and ordered the suspension.

In superior court, Wilson challenged the DMV ruling, claiming the suspension was based on inadmissible evidence. The court ruled:

“I find no evidence that the laboratory furnishing the reports was a licensed forensic laboratory. Thus the court cannot consider the report as a public record exception to the hearsay rule. (See

[Imachi]

Dept of Motor Vehicles

[(1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 809 (3 Cal.Rptr.2d 478 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 478])]).

“Accordingly, the petition is granted as prayed for.”

DMV appeals.

We conclude that, contrary to the superior court’s ruling, the documentary evidence in question was admissible; based on the totality of the evidence, the suspension of Wilson’s license by DMV was proper.

Wilson v. Zolin

AI Brief

VARTABEDIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief