In State v. Kuropchak, the Appellate Division considered the admissibility of evidence in DWI cases. As an aside, the Court held that the failure to admit foundational documents required in State v. Chun required reversal. No surprise here. But the Court went on to hold that admitting the Drunk Driving Questionnaire (DDQ) and the Drinking Driving Report (DDR) was also an error. The DDQ and DDR are reports filled out by police officers in connection with a DWI stop. The municipal court wrongly admitted the reports under the business records execption to the hearsay rule. The Appellate Division held that the exception did not apply and the documents were hearsay. Counsel shoud be careful to challenge the admission of documents to protect client’s rights and not allow issues like this to go without objection. Epecially in DWI cases, you need a lawyer who is up to date on the law.