Easter v. State

• Decision Date: 27 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1178, Sept. Term, 2013.,1178, Sept. Term, 2013.
• Citation: 115 A.3d 239,223 Md.App. 65
• Parties: Harry EASTER v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

223 Md.App. 65

115 A.3d 239

Harry EASTER

v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 1178, Sept. Term, 2013.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

May 27, 2015.

Marc A. DeSimone, Jr. (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Robert Taylor, Jr. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: MEREDITH, GRAEFF and LEAHY, JJ.

Opinion

GRAEFF, J.

Harry Easter, appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of three counts of manslaughter by vehicle, one count of causing a life threatening injury while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, speeding, and other related offenses. The court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of thirty years' incarceration.

On appeal, appellant presents the following questions for our review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:

1. Did the circuit court err in permitting the State to introduce the results of a blood alcohol test where the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody between the blood obtained from appellant and the blood tested to obtain those results?

2. Did the circuit court err in permitting the State's expert to offer testimony relating to the data acquired from the air bag control module of appellant's vehicle where the State failed to establish the accuracy and validity of the methodology used to acquire that data?

For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2011, appellant drove his sport utility vehicle (“SUV”), at a speed of approximately 89 miles per hour, into the rear of another vehicle. Appellant struck the car with such force that the two rear-seat occupants were ejected through the rear window of the car and killed. The driver also was killed when the car struck a tree. The front seat passenger survived, but he sustained a fractured back, a fractured pelvis

, an ankle injury, a concussion, and other serious and debilitating juries.

When the surviving front seat passenger got out of the vehicle to look for his wife and the driver's wife, he saw appellant standing there. He asked appellant for help, but appellant just continued to stand there, offering no assistance. Appellant's blood alcohol content was .24 grams per 100 ml of blood, three times the legal limit to operate a vehicle.

We shall incorporate additional facts, relevant to each of the questions presented by appellant, in our discussion.

DISCUSSION

I.Admission of Results of the Blood Test

Appellant first contends that the circuit court “erred in allowing the State to offer blood test results because the State failed to establish the chain of custody between the blood taken from [appellant] and the blood tested to produce [the] test result.” The State disagrees, asserting that “the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the results of [appellant's] blood test.”

A.Proceedings Below

Officer Thomas Crosby, a member of the Prince George's County Police Department, testified that, on June 5, 2011, he transported appellant from the scene of the accident to Fort Washington Hospital Center. He observed a phlebotomist draw blood from appellant to measure his blood alcohol level.

Corporal Stephen Fox supplied the hospital with a blood collection kit. He described a blood collection kit as a sealed cardboard box containing vials for blood collection, a preparatory product to clean the skin at the collection site, and security seals and integrity seals. Once the blood is collected, the vials are secured with the seals and then repackaged in the cardboard box, which is then sealed. The blood collection kit that he provided to the hospital was “new, unopened, and it was still within its expiration time period.”

Corporal Fox observed the phlebotomist draw blood from appellant. After the blood was in the vials from the blood collection kit, the phlebotomist sealed the vials with integrity seals and signed the chain of custody form, which was admitted as State's Exhibit # 14. This form contained the phlebotomist's signature, appellant's name, the time and date of arrest, and the time, date, and location of the sample collection.

Corporal Fox then repackaged the vials into a secured container with foam packaging, put the container into a bag, and then put the bag in the cardboard box. Corporal Fox took the repackaged blood collection kit to the Special Operations Division offices, and he placed the package into the mail to the Chemical Test for Alcohol Unit of the Maryland State Police for analysis. Corporal Fox testified that the legal limit in Maryland to operate a motor vehicle is .08 grams per 100 ml of blood.

Phlebotomist Seleshe Russom confirmed that he drew blood from appellant using a blood collection kit supplied to him by the police. He verified his signature on the police chain of custody form, which had been admitted as State's Exhibit # 14.

Wayne Shu, a forensic scientist with the Maryland State Police Crime Lab, performed the blood alcohol content testing in this case. He identified State's Exhibit # 14 as “a copy of the Form 34 that's filled out and provided.” He stated, however, that “there seemed to be a bottom part missing to this,” explaining that his copy of the “Form 34 on the bottom has where [he] could input the results and get the control number,” and that the exhibit was “a little different than [his] copy, but it's similar.”

Mr. Shu described the blood analysis process, in relevant part, as follows:

The blood kit is hand delivered to the Maryland State Police Crime Lab, which is then received by our receiving unit. At that time, it's logged into our system, which is our evidence tracking system. When I'm ready for analysis, I call down to receiving and I pick up the kit, which I do. After that, I bring it to our toxicology unit, which is our locked lab which only approved personnel can get into; namely, the forensic scientist working toxicology and also the supervisors and management.

After the kit is taken into the lab, it's then locked in our refrigerator, which has key to it, and it stays there until I'm ready to analyze the blood kit.

At that point, that blood kit is taken out and we run our analysis in batches.... But ... only one kit is opened at one time to make sure there's no tube switching, and I make sure that the numbers on the kit corresponds with the evidence kit itself.

After I make sure of that ... we [test] two vials for quality assurance. The results have to be duplicated. After that, I ... make a sequence. And after I check the sequence with the worksheet, make sure it corresponds to the evidence kit itself, I run the instrument and the instrument prints out the results after it's finished the analysis. And I review the analysis and submit the findings to our ... Chemical Testing for Alcohol Unit ... they send a report to me, I review it and sign it after I make sure everything is correct.

Mr. Shu explained that, in this case, he received appellant's blood kit from “our [central] receiving unit,” and he “put it into the refrigerator in our toxicology unit until [he] was ready to analyze the blood.” When he was ready, he took it out of the refrigerator, “sampled it,” and then followed the testing procedure that he outlined for the jury. After the blood sample was analyzed, a report was printed, and he wrote down the results. Once he received the final report, he made sure the information was correct, and he signed the report.

The State then moved into evidence, as State's Exhibit # 13, the report indicating Mr. Shu's findings. Appellant objected, arguing that the “State has not established chain of custody. They haven't established that the blood that was taken by this phlebotomist, Mr. Russom, was the blood that was analyzed by this particular witness.” Appellant asserted that the parties did not “have the actual blood kit that was taken, the actual blood that was taken, the vials, the cardboard box, any of the notations on the cardboard box.” Instead, all the parties had was State's Exhibit # 14, “which would have been the only marking or only indication of what was actually given to” Mr. Shu, and Mr. Shu had indicated that the exhibit was “not what was provided to him,” but rather, it was only “similar.” Thus, he concluded, the State had not established that the blood that was drawn was the same blood that was analyzed by Mr. Shu.

The court then allowed the State to further examine Mr. Shu about the condition of the blood collection kit when he received it. Mr. Shu explained that he had received the package from the police Central Receiving Unit. The blood collection kit was a cardboard box with evidence tape over it to seal it. Mr. Shu broke the “evidence seal and opened the cardboard box. Inside the box was a “plastic clam shell that has evidence seals alongside of it.” Mr. Shu broke the seals on the “clam shell” to get to the two test tubes, and he ensured that there was no evidence of tampering.

After that testimony, the State again sought to admit into evidence the results of appellant's blood alcohol test. Appellant objected, arguing that Mr. Shu had indicated that he received the package via hand-delivery, and Officer Fox had testified that he had mailed the kit. He asserted that there was a “hole in the chain of custody,” and “if we had the vials and the cardboard kit and the attached signatures on that cardboard kit, then perhaps the State could establish chain of custody. We don't have that. All we have at this point is ... State's Exhibit 14, which doesn't indicate anything at this point.”

The court overruled appellant's objection. State's Exhibit # 13, along with Mr. Shu's testimony regarding the results of Mr. Shu's testing of appellant's blood, was admitted. Appellant's blood alcohol concentration was .24 grams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

On cross-examination, appellant asked Mr. Shu about the difference between State's...