A.Admissibility. In any prosecution of an offense within the trial jurisdiction of the metropolitan court, in which prosecution a convicted defendant is entitled to an appeal de novo, the following evidence is not to be excluded under the hearsay rule, even though the declarant may be available as a witness:(1) a written report of the conduct and results of a chemical analysis of breath or blood for determining blood alcohol concentration and the circumstances surrounding receipt and custody of the test sample if:(a) the report is of an analysis conducted by a laboratory certified by the scientific laboratory division of the health department to perform breath and blood alcohol tests;(b) the report is on a form approved by the supreme court and is regular on its face; and(c) a legible copy of the report was mailed to the donor of the sample at least ten (10) days before trial;(2) a print-out produced by a breath-testing device which performs an analysis of the defendant's breath to determine blood alcohol concentration if: (a) the law enforcement officer who operated the device is certified to operate the device by the scientific laboratory of the health and environment department [department of health]; and(b) upon request, the calibration testing records for a reasonable period of time surrounding the defendant's test are made available to the defendant for inspection prior to trial. The defendant may request a copy to be made of the testing records at the defendant's expense.(3) a written report of the conduct and results of a chemical analysis of a substance to determine if such substance is a controlled substance and the circumstances surrounding receipt and custody of the test sample if:(a) the report is of an analysis conducted by an authorized agency of the State of New Mexico or any of its political subdivisions, other than a law enforcement agency or agency under the direction and control of a law enforcement agency;(b) the report is on a form approved by the supreme court and is regular on its face; and(c) a legible copy of the report was mailed to the donor of the sample at least ten (10) days before trial.B.Proof of mailing; authentication. If the evidence is a written report of the conduct and results of a chemical analysis of breath, blood or controlled substance prepared pursuant to Subparagraph (1) or (3) of Paragraph A of this rule, except for the portion of the report which is completed by the law enforcement officer, proof of mailing and authentication of the report shall be by certificate on the report.C.Admissibility of other evidence. Nothing in this rule shall limit the right of a party to call witnesses to testify as to the matters covered in a chemical analysis of a controlled substance or blood or breath alcohol print-out or report or affect the admissibility of any other relevant evidence.N.M. R. Crim. P. Metro. Ct. 7-607
As amended, effective 10/1/1987;10/1/1991. ANNOTATIONS The 1991 amendment, effective for cases filed in the metropolitan courts on or after October 1, 1991, added "controlled substance chemical analysis reports" to the catchline; in Paragraph A, rewrote Subparagraph (1)(a) and added Subparagraph (3); in Paragraph B, substituted "breath, blood or controlled substance" for "breath or blood" and inserted "or (3)"; and, in Paragraph C, inserted "chemical analysis of a controlled substance or". Bracketed material. - The bracketed reference to the department of health was inserted by the compiler, as Laws 1991, ch. 25, § 16 repeals former Section 9-7-4 NMSA 1978, relating to the department of health and environment, and enacts a new Section 9-7-4 NMSA 1978, relating to the department of health, which is defined as including the scientific laboratory. The bracketed material was not approved by the Supreme Court and is not part of the rule.
For report of analysis on blood alcohol, see Rule 9-505 NMRA. Adoption of rule. - This rule provides for establishing proper calibration of blood alcohol testing devices; its requirements may be met through live testimony, affidavit or certification, or calibration testing records. Bransford v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1998-NMCA-077, 125 N.M. 285, 960 P.2d 827. Foundation for the admission of breathalyzer tests. - All that is necessary to lay a proper foundation for the admission of breathalyzer test results in a criminal DWI trial is the live testimony of the officer who administered the test as to his familiarity with the testing procedure, the recent calibration of the machine, and his observation that the test administration proceeded without error. State v. Smith, 1999-NMCA-154, 128 N.M. 467, 994 P.2d 47, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823 (1999). Improper admission of blood alcohol test. - The improper admission of a blood alcohol test (BAT) was harmless error since the defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs and there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of the offense without consideration of the BAT results. State v. Gutierrez, 1996-NMCA-001, 121 N.M. 191, 909 P.2d 751.