Commonwealth v. Dyarman , - A.3d - -, 2011 WL 5560176 (Pa.Super.), 2011 PA Super 245
The court was asked to decide whether admission of the calibration records of an Intoxilyzer 5000en violated the Confrontation Clause absent testimony from the individual who performed the accuracy checks.
Held : The calibration logs were admitted to establish the chain of custody and accuracy of the device; they were not created in anticipation of Appellant's particular litigation, or used to prove an element of a crime for which Appellant was charged. Thus, the logs were not “testimonial" for purposes of the protections afforded by the Confrontation Clause.