People v. Mari
Decision Date | 02 December 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 26289,26289 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank MARI, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John P. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Patricia W. Robb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
C. H. Anderson, Brush, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant was arrested in Logan County, and charged with violating 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 13--5--30, which prohibits driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was taken to the sheriff's office where he submitted to a blood-alcohol test administered by Iris Lambert, a medical technologist. Neither a physician, nor a registered nurse was present at the time the blood was extracted.
At trial, in Logan County Court, Mrs. Lambert's testimony as to the analysis of the blood sample for its alcoholic content was introduced into evidence over objection of the defense counsel. She testified that the defendant's blood sample contained .275 per cent of alcohol by weight. The court found the defendant guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol, and on appeal, the District Court for Logan County affirmed. Appeal from the district court judgment was taken to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Upon application this Court accepted jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.
Defendant contends that the trial judge improperly admitted the testimony of Iris Lambert concerning the results of the blood-alcohol test in that she did not qualify under section 13--5--30(3)(b) as one entitled to withdraw blood for the purpose of administering the test. He further argues that even if Mrs. Lambert was a qualified person under the statute, the withdrawal of his blood under the circumstances constituted an unreasonable search of his person, thereby violating his rights as protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article II, § 7 of the Colorado Constitution. We do not agree with either contention.
First, the defendant contends that the medical technologist, Iris Lambert, was not qualified to 'withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content therein.' 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 13--5--30(3)(b). That statute states:
It is upon the emphasized portion of the statute that the People claim Mrs. Lambert's qualification. The defendant, on the other hand, asserts that because Mrs. Lambert was not, at the moment she withdrew defendant's blood, acting under the supervision of a doctor or registered nurse, she did not come within the class of persons qualified by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Johnston
...210 Ariz. 452, 112 P.3d 39, 41–42 (Ariz.Ct.App.2005); Moore v. State, 323 Ark. 529, 915 S.W.2d 284, 290–91 (1996); People v. Mari, 187 Colo. 85, 528 P.2d 917, 918 (1974); State v. Cardona, No. CRIM.A. IN08–05–1015–18, 2008 WL 5206771, 2008 Del.Super. LEXIS 414 (Del.Super. Dec. 3, 2008) (mem......
-
State v. Johnston
...facilities, appellant was not in this instance subjected to an `unjustified element of personal risk and pain'"); People v. Mari, 187 Colo. 85, 528 P.2d 917, 918 (1974) (holding blood draw valid under Fourth Amendment when taken by medical technologist at sheriff's office); State v. Cardona......
-
Garrison v. State, 818
... ... Several cases from other jurisdictions are instructive on the issue of multiunit premises not apparent. In People v. Kinnebrew, 75 Mich.App. 81, 254 N.W.2d 662 (1977), the ... Page 429 ... Michigan Constitution, like Maryland's, 3 provided that warrants ... ...
-
State Of Tex. v. Johnston, PD-1736-09
...759 (citing State v. May, 112 P.3d 39, 41-42 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005); Moore v. State, 915 S.W.2d 284, 290-91 (Ark. 1996); People v. Mari, 528 P.2d 917, 918 (Colo. 1974); State v. Cardona, No. CRIM. A. IN08-05-1015-18, 2008 Del. Super. LEXIS 414 (Del. Super. Dec. 3, 2008) (mem. op.); State v. ......