Novak v. District of Columbia, 9396.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 9396.,9396. |
| Citation | 82 US App. DC 95,160 F.2d 588 |
| Parties | NOVAK v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Harry W. Goldberg, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Chester H. Gray, Principal Assistant Corporation Counsel, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, and Edward A. Beard, Assistant Corporation Counsel, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and CLARK and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
Bernard E. Novak appeals from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which affirmed a verdict and judgment of the Criminal Division of the Municipal Court convicting him of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The case involves the admissibility of evidence relative to a sample of urine furnished to a police officer by appellant at the time of his arrest, and we allowed an appeal to establish the correct rule for this jurisdiction concerning this type of evidence. We find, however, that this issue is not now properly before us for consideration since a review of the trial proceedings leaves us with the opinion that the evidence in question was improperly admitted because not sufficiently identified.
The specimen was obtained from appellant while he was under arrest by a uniformed police officer who did not inform appellant that he had the right to refuse, or that the sample might be used as evidence against him, but who told appellant that if the sample was right it would be to his benefit.
At the trial the officer testified that after he obtained the sample he labeled the flask containing it with appellant's name, the time and place of taking it; that he wrote his own initials on the label and the next day turned the specimen over to the District Health Department laboratories.
The court then accepted in evidence, over appellant's objections, laboratory records of the Health Department of an analysis made by a chemist formerly employed by that department, and the testimony of another Health Department chemist concerning his later analysis, both made of a sample of urine taken from a bottle labeled with appellant's name. The chemist, at the time of his testimony, had beside him a small bottle, labeled, and containing a liquid which appeared to be urine. His testimony was that he made his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Hogan
...overruling defendant's motion for new trial, Thomas v. Martin, 202 F.Supp. 540, 543 (E.D. Va.1961), citing Novak v. District of Columbia, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 160 F.2d 588 (1947). 2 See McCormick, Evidence 597 (1954); 5 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 522-28 (3d ed. 3 See e. g., the cases collected in ......
-
United States v. Robinson
...out, been alert to the necessity of high standards in maintaining the security of criminal evidence. See Novak v. District of Columbia, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 160 F.2d 588 (1947). Our most recent formulation of this principle, however, appears in Gass v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 14,......
-
Reed v. State
...Cox, 428 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1970); Novak v. District of Columbia, 49 A.2d 88 (Mun.Ct.App.D.C. 1946); rev'd on other grounds, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 160 F.2d 588 (1947). See also Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused, Pretrial Rights (1972), § 57.'29 But see, Brewer v. Willians, -- U.S. --......
-
Mayes v. State
...v. United States (9th Cir. 1967), 381 F.2d 20; Barquera v. State of California (9th Cir. 1967), 374 F.2d 177; Novak v. District of Columbia (1947), 82 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 160 F.2d 588; Jemison v. State (1965), 40 Ala.App. 581, 120 So.2d 748; State v. Rascon (1965), 97 Ariz. 336, 400 P.2d 330; ......
-
§ 26.02 REAL EVIDENCE
...676, 679 (7th Cir. 1965) ("There is no evidence as to where or from whom Lieutenant Remkus got the keys."); Novak v. District of Columbia, 160 F.2d 588, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1947) (evidence failed "to identify the sample from which the [urine] analyses were made as being that sample taken from ap......
-
§ 26.02 Real Evidence
...676, 679 (7th Cir. 1965) ("There is no evidence as to where or from whom Lieutenant Remkus got the keys."); Novak v. District of Columbia, 160 F.2d 588, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1947) (evidence failed "to identify the sample from which the [urine] analyses were made as being that sample taken from ap......
-
CHAPTER 3 CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION
...Agent Fraga obtained it]," Trial Tr., Mar. 3, 2008 (P.M.) at 102 — is fundamentally correct. ... See Novak v. District of Columbia, 160 F.2d 588, 588-89 (D.C.Cir.1947) (citing Smith v. United States, 157 F.2d 705 (D.C.Cir.1946)). In Novak, a police officer testified that he had obtained a u......