State v. Davis.

*266DISSENTING OPINION BY

RECKTENWALD, C.J.,

IN WHICH NAKAYAMA, J., JOINS

I respectfully dissent. The Majority holding will impose an additional evidentiary burden on the State in drunk driving cases— a burden which is not required under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE). I would hold instead that the Intoxilyzer supervisor’s inspection record is admissible as a public record pursuant to HRE Rule 803(b)(8)(B), consistent with other federal1 and state2 jurisdictions to consider this issue. In so concluding, I fully agree with the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) reasoning in State v. Ofa. 9…