Criminal law — Driving under influence — Evidence — Breath test — Inspection and maintenance of breath testing machine — Substantial compliance with administrative rules — Where it is uncontroverted that Intoxilyzer used to test defendant’s breath on December 10 was inspected on November 9, but was not inspected in December or in January, state failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with requirement that machine be inspected at least once each calendar month — Trial court erred in suggesting that there is inflexible rule requiring state to produce inspection reports for month before, month of, and month after breath test in order to demonstrate substantial compliance with monthly inspection requirement — Trial court erred in suggesting that when law enforcement has not substantially complied with administrative requirements of implied consent law for approved breath test, breath test results are nonetheless admissible if state satisfies three-prong test outlined in Bender — Even though breath test affidavit may satisfy all requirements for admissibility as exception to hearsay rule, test results presented in affidavit are still not admissible under exclusionary rule of implied consent law