In People v. Baker , Steven Baker was driving through the Town of Chesterfield when his vehicle struck and killed a jogger.
Baker was driving about 15 miles over the speed limit and a blood test taken after the accident reflected a .10% blood alcohol content.
Before he was convicted, Baker asked the Essex County Court to set aside the verdict contending "the evidence of his blood alcohol content had been improperly admitted" because prosecutors hadn't established the device used to analyze his blood had been properly "calibrated," or tested for accuracy.
Although the court ordered a new trial on vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, Baker was convicted and sentenced to 4 to 12 years for manslaughter in the second degree, one year for driving while intoxicated, and, 30 days for aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, agreed prosecutors couldn't use the blood alcohol analysis because they failed to "elicit testimony [from their expert] regarding the specific steps he took to ensure reliability and accuracy of the test." While that normally would be harmless error when the evidence points decidedly to a defendant's guilt, that wasn't the case here.
Though witnesses reported Baker reeked of alcohol, he argued he hadn't excessively consumed alcohol hours prior to the accident, and, while witnesses claimed Baker was driving "very fast" and should have been able to see the jogger, that, according to the AD3, didn't "overwhelmingly establish [Baker's] guilt."
As a result, the convictions were reversed and the case sent back to the Essex County Court for a new trial.
How do you calibrate that?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Baker