Under Garthe, the State must establish that the breathalyzer machine used to perform the two tests upon defendant was in proper working order at the time. Ibid. Here, the State offered into evidence two certificates of operability showing that the particular breathalyzer machine used had been tested by the State Police Breath Test Unit, and found to be in good working order, both prior and subsequent to defendant’s arrest. Certificate number 127-04 was issued on August 11, .2d 301, 305 (in a similar context, holding that laboratory reports are non-testimonial business records when "the testing is mechanical” and objective, as opposed to the subjective analysis of a specific defendant), review denied, 634 S.E.2d 537 (N.C.2006); State v. Norman, 203 Or.App. 1, 125 P.3d 15, 19-20 (2005) (<HOLDING>), review denied., 340 Or. 308, 132 P.3d 28
holding that certifications of a breathtest machine are nontestimonial because they are not prepared for any specific defendant or any specific litigation holding that driving records were nontestimonial holding certificates of inspection of a breathalyzer were nontestimonial business records holding that the certifications of accuracy of the breathalyzer machine are nontestimonial business records free from confrontation clause scrutiny holding that admission of business records does not violate the confrontation clause under roberts