Before a test result may be introduced into evidence, “a foundation must be laid showing that the test result can be relied on as a substantive fact.” State v. Werle, 121 Hawai'i 274 , 280, 218 P.3d 762 , 768. “When a question arises regarding the necessary foundation for the introduction of evidence, the determination of whether proper foundation has been established lies within the discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be overturned absent a showing of clear abuse.”

Public safety and health advisements also reference BAC levels. The ordinary person may not understand how a BAC level is calculated or what it means chemically. See State v. Werle, 121 Hawai‘i 274, 282, 218 P.3d 762, 770 (2009) (stating "[b]lood alcohol tests are scientific in nature"). But adults in the United States generally share a basic understanding that .08 is a threshold quantification of alcohol consumption that impairs an individual's physical and mental faculties and ability to safely drive a car.

It is axiomatic that "[i]n Hawai'i, the admissibility of scientific or technical evidence is governed by Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 702 (1993) and 703 (1993)." State v. Werle, 121 Hawai'i 274, 282, 218 P.3d 762, 770 (2009). Hence, "a proper foundation for the introduction of a scientific [or technical] test result would necessarily include expert testimony regarding: (1) the qualifications of the expert; (2) whether the expert employed valid techniques to obtain the test result; and (3) whether the measuring instrument is 'in proper working order.'"

.To the extent that the dissent suggests Mat such a combination of evidence is inconsistent with 24 years of practice in Hawai'i courts, dissent at 266, 400 P.3d at 467, we note that in numerous cases, the State has laid a foundation for test results in OVUII prosecutions in part by introducing testimony of a qualified Intoxilyzer supervisor or other professional familiar with test equipment calibration procedures. See, e.g., State v. Werle, 121 Hawai'i 274 , 278, 218 P.3d 762 , 766 (2009) (testimony from licensed medical technologist that he tested the defendant’s blood for alcohol concentration and “outlinfing] his training and experience in the use and calibration of ... the device he used to test [the defendant’s] blood sample” (internal quotations omitted));

The State may establish the reliability of the blood test result with a record that shows that the DUI Coordinator approved the specific blood alcohol testing procedure and instrument. State v. Werle, 121 Hawai‘i 274, 283, 218 P.3d 762, 771 (2009). As discussed below, State's Exhibit 1 (Exhibit 1) was properly admitted into evidence.

“Compliance with the manufacturer specifications is not required to admit breath alcohol test results.” State v. Hsu, 129 Hawai‘i 426, 301 P.3d 1267, CAAP–10–0000214 2013 WL 1919514 at *1 (App. May 9, 2013) (SDO), cert. denied (Aug. 20, 2013); see also State v. Werle, 121 Hawai‘i 274, 283, 218 P.3d 762, 771 (2009) (“DOH's approval of a testing procedure and instrument for blood alcohol analysis is a ‘shortcut’ to establishing the reliability ... as a prerequisite to admissibility ... provided that the record shows that the DUI coordinator approved the specific blood testing procedure and instrument [.]”). State's Exhibit 2 indicates that the Intoxilyzer 8000 is a breath alcohol testing instrument approved pursuant to HRS § 321–161 (2010), which in turn authorizes the Department of Health to establish and administer a statewide program for chemical testing of alcohol for the purpose of chapter 291E.However, compliance with the Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) Title 11, Chapter 114 is required to establish evidentiary foundation for admission of a breath alcohol test.

Thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when, by requiring strict compliance with those provisions of Chapter 114 that bear directly on validity and accuracy, see Kemper, 80 Hawai‘i at 105, 905 P.2d at 80, it essentially, and appropriately, deferred to the Director's particular expertise for the limited purpose of establishing admissibility. See State v. Werle, 121 Hawai‘i 274, 283, 218 P.3d 762, 771 (2009) (observing that showing compliance with Chapter 114 approval requirements for machine and test procedures is a “shortcut” to demonstrating general reliability, and making no mention of manufacturer specifications). Hsu also argues that his breath test results should not be admitted because “[n]owhere in this record is there any mention of the procedure used by the supervisor and/or whether that procedure was approved by the DUI Coordinator, as required by HAR [§ ] 11–114–7(a).”