Kyhl v. Com., 5734

• Decision Date: 27 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 5734,5734
• Parties: ELWOOD COOLIDGE KYHL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 768

135 S.E.2d 768

205 Va. 240

ELWOOD COOLIDGE KYHL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 5734.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

April 27, 1964.

John Alexander (Martin & Alexander, on brief), for the plaintiff in error.

R. D. McIlwaine, III, Assistant Attorney General (Robert Y. Button, Attorney General, on brief), for the Commonwealth.

JUDGE: SNEAD

SNEAD, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Elwood Coolidge Kyhl, sometimes referred to as defendant, was convicted in the Fauquier County Court on a warrant charging him with operating 'a motor vehicle over the public highway while under the influence of alcoholic beverages' in violation of Code, § 18.1-54. He appealed the conviction to the Circuit Court of Fauquier County, where the case was tried by the court without a jury. On a plea of not guilty he was found guilty as charged and his punishment was fixed at a fine of $300 and by confinement in jail for a term of 30 days. The execution of the jail sentence was suspended on condition that he be of good behavior for the ensuing year. From this judgment we granted defendant a writ of error.

On January 27, 1963, defendant was observed by two State troopers driving a station wagon 'in a very haphazardly manner' on Route No. 17 north of Warrenton, Virginia. The officers stopped defendant's vehicle after following it for a considerable distance. They 'detected a very strong odor of intoxicants on Mr. Kyhl's breath' and noticed that he was unsteady on his feet. He had a 'far-away stare' in his eyes and he had difficulty with his speech. He was placed under arrest at approximately 4:20 p.m. for operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants and was advised that he was entitled to have his blood tested for alcoholic content. Kyhl consented to take the test and he was carried by trooper R. W. Willis, one of the arresting officers, to Fauquier Hospital in Warrenton for that purpose. They arrived there 15 minutes after the arrest was made.

Mrs. Hazel Anderson, a registered professional nurse employed by the hospital, extracted 20 c.c. of blood from defendant within 15 minutes after his arrival. Defendant's arm was sterilized with 'Zephiran chloride solution', which Mrs. Anderson said to her knowledge contains no alcohol or trace of alcohol. No substance was used by her to sterilize the needle with which defendant's blood was extracted. She stated that she used 'a presealed, disposable container, which is used one time and then discarded. And this is pre-sealed (sic) and sterilized at the factory, not at the hospital'. On cross-examination Mrs. Anderson admitted that she had never been to the factory where the needles were packaged and that she did not know if they were sterilized.

Over the objection and exception of defendant the trial court admitted into evidence the certificate or blood alcohol report attested by the Assistant Chief Medical Examiner. It showed that the blood extracted from defendant contained 0.29% alcohol by weight.

While the assignments of error pose several questions, in the view we take of the case, it is only necessary to consider defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the certificate attested by the Assistant Chief Medical Examiner because the Commonwealth's evidence failed to show that the provisions of Code, § 18.1-55 had been met since the instrument used to extract defendant's blood was not cleansed or sterilized by the nurse.

The Commonwealth contends that the record discloses full compliance with the statute and contains no evidence tending to show noncompliance. The Commonwealth also takes the position that 'in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed as a matter of law that officers and individuals engaged in the withdrawal and disposition of the instant defendant's blood sample properly discharged their duties and faithfully performed all the obligations imposed upon them by law in this connection.'

The pertinent provisions of Code, § 18.1-55, called the 'Implied Consent Law', follow:

'(c) Only a physician, registered professional nurse or graduate laboratory technician, using some type of a cleanser or sterilizer for the instruments used and for the part of the body from which the blood is taken, other than alcohol or other substance which might in any way affect the accuracy of the test, shall withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content therein; * * *. (Italics supplied.)

* * *...