Legal Opinion

Matthies v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided May 31, 2011No. 2010-KM-00783-COAPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MAXWELL, J.,

for the Court:

¶ 1. Andrew Matthies appeals his conviction for driving under the influence, first offense. His voluntary breath sample on the Intoxilyzer 8000 administered at the police station registered a blood-alcohol content (BAC) in excess of Mississippi’s legal limit of .08%. He argues the admission of intoxilyzer calibration records violated his confrontation rights because the person who calibrated the machine did not testify. We find the records nontestimonial in character, and the Confrontation Clause does not require the testimony of their preparer. Therefore, we affirm.

F…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. McIlwain v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1997

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Matthies v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2012
  2. State of Maine v. Joshua BeelerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2022
  3. Dominick v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2012
  4. Parkman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2012
  5. Clyde Chatman, Jr. v. State of MississippiCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2017

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API