City of Seattle v. Carnell
Decision Date | 25 September 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 32399-7-I,32399-7-I |
Citation | 902 P.2d 186,79 Wn.App. 400 |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | The CITY OF SEATTLE, Appellant, v. Dennis CARNELL, Respondent. |
Margaret M. Boyle, Seattle, for appellant.
Stephen A. Lotzkar, Howard S. Stein, Bellevue, for respondent.
The City of Seattle (City) appeals the decision of the superior court on a RALJ appeal. The superior court reversed a decision of the municipal court which had admitted breath test results over defense objection. In doing so, the driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DWI) conviction of Dennis Carnell was reversed. We hold that defense counsel failed to preserve the alleged error that the chain of custody of the simulator solution used in the BAC Verifier DataMaster breath analysis machine must be established as a foundational requirement for admission of the breath test results. Further, we hold there is no such foundational requirement. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the superior court, and reinstate the municipal court's decision and the conviction.
Dennis Carnell was charged with DWI. He entered a not guilty plea and the matter was set for trial. Counsel filed two standard pre-trial DWI motion forms noting numerous motions. Pre-trial, some of these motions were addressed. At trial, defense counsel only raised a previously noted CrR 3.5 motion and affirmatively waived all other motions.
The City requested admission of the results of Carnell's BAC Verifier DataMaster (BAC) test. Defense counsel objected on the ground of lack of a "sufficient foundation". The court denied the objection and admitted the results of the BAC test. Defense counsel did not request a sidebar, indicate what specific foundational requirement was lacking, or clarify her objection. Carnell was found guilty.
The superior court held: (1) defense counsel's foundational objections were not too general to make a sufficient record regarding a chain of custody objection; and (2) the person who changes the simulator solution is a necessary witness to establish foundation for the admission of the breath test results.
The City claims the superior court erred in finding that defense counsel's general objection to the BAC test results based on insufficient foundation was sufficient to preserve the alleged error for review. At the time the City requested admission of the BAC test results, defense counsel objected on the ground of the lack of a "sufficient foundation". Counsel did not state any specific foundational requirement she believed to be lacking. The record does not contain a specific chain of custody objection, nor is such an objection apparent from the context of the objection or the previously filed forms.
The City contends the objection made by defense counsel was not specific enough to inform the trial court of the actual alleged issue and give the City and the trial court an opportunity to correct any error. See State v. Casteneda-Perez, 61 Wash.App. 354, 363-64, 810 P.2d 74, review denied, 118 Wash.2d 1007, 822 P.2d 287 (1991) ( ). Cf. State v. Suarez-Bravo, 72 Wash.App. 359, 365, 864 P.2d 426 (1994) ( ). See also, State v. Padilla, 69 Wash.App. 295, 300, 846 P.2d 564 (1993) ( ). We agree.
An objection claiming a lack of foundation is a general objection that will not be viewed as preserving an issue for appeal. 5 Karl Tegland, Wash.Prac., Evidence § 10, at 32 (3d ed. 1989); 5A Karl Tegland, Wash.Prac., Evidence § 244, at 265 (3d ed. 1989) ( ). See State v. Hubbard, 37 Wash.App. 137, 679 P.2d 391 (1984), rev'd on other grounds, 103 Wash.2d 570, 693 P.2d 718 (1985) ( ).
The lack of specificity of an objection and the possible ramifications of nonspecific objections are shown in the instant case. Here, the person who changed the simulator solution before Carnell's test, thus the person whose testimony was deemed lacking in the RALJ appeal, was the same technician who testified to the testing of this particular BAC machine at trial. The record shows that the admission of the BAC test results was done at the time this person was on the witness stand. Had a more specific objection been made, the City could have immediately corrected any alleged deficiency through this very witness. The superior court erred in finding that the objection was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.
Even if we were to agree with Carnell and find that the issue was preserved for review, w...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of Wash. v. RUSSELL
...Thus, a general lack of foundation objection will not preserve a chain of custody objection for appeal. City of Seattle v. Carnell, 79 Wn. App. 400, 403, 902 P.2d 186 (1995). Mr. Russell's chain of custody challenge is waived on appeal. And his argument fails in any event. "'Before a physic......
-
State v. Russell
... ... (1999), rev'd on other grounds , 143 Wn.2d 915, ... 25 P.3d 423 (2001); City of Wenatchee v. Durham , 43 ... Wn.App. 547, 550-51, 718 P.2d 819 (1986). Mr. Russell ... known as the "non per se" or "other ... evidence" prongs. City of Seattle v ... Clark-Munoz , 152 Wn.2d 39, 44, 93 P.3d 141 (2004); ... State v. Charley , 136 ... not preserve a chain of custody objection for appeal ... City of Seattle v. Carnell , 79 Wn.App. 400, 403, 902 ... P.2d 186 (1995). Mr. Russell's chain of custody challenge ... ...
-
City of Seattle v. Levesque
...each case, the objecting party either provided no basis for the objection or failed to object entirely. See City of Seattle v. Carnell, 79 Wash. App. 400, 402, 902 P.2d 186 (1995) (holding that the statement "lack of a ‘sufficient foundation’ " without "indicat[ion of] what specific foundat......
-
State v. J.J.W.D.
...these things occurred." "[L]ack of foundation" is insufficient to preserve error for review on appeal. See City of Seattle v. Carnell, 79 Wn. App. 400, 402, 902 P.2d 186 (1995) (holding that the statement "lack of a 'sufficient foundation'" without "indicat[ion of] what specific foundationa......