State v. William Rehmann, Jr., ? N.J. Super. ?, 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS 72 (April 29, 2011) – DWI and related convictions affirmed.
“In this appeal, defendant argues the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment was violated when the State, in attempting to prove his blood alcohol content, relied upon the testimony of an expert who supervised but did not actually perform the test on defendant’s blood sample….
Here, the State called Maxwell to prove defendant’s BAC. Although Mitchell, and not Maxwell, operated the gas chromatograph in examining defendant’s blood sample, Maxwell testified that he supervised the test. He claimed he had personal knowledge of the equipment and the manner in which the tests were performed and that he drew his own conclusions from the information provided by the gas chromatograph….
In addition, Maxwell testified that he observed Mitchell conduct the tests and was with him ‘every step of the way’ as if he performed the tests himself because Mitchell was being retrained and, consequently, was not allowed to test the samples by himself…. Because he was the author of the laboratory certificate and because he supervised another’s operation of the gas chromatograph, Maxwell was the appropriate person to be called to testify about the results of the testing of defendant’s blood sample…. [W]e reject defendant’s argument that the Confrontation Clause was violated in these circumstances.”