People v. Morse
| Decision Date | 29 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 73.,73. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MORSE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from the Recorder's Court for City of Detroit, Traffic and Ordinance Division; Philip Elliott, Judge.
Donald F. Morse was convicted of negligent homicide, and he appeals.
Sentence vacated, conviction reversed and set aside cause remanded for a new trial.Before the Entire Bench.
Lewis & Watkins, Detroit (James K. Watkins, John R. Watkins, Detroit, of counsel), for defendant and appellant.
Stephen J. Roth, Attorney General, Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General, Lansing, Gerald K. O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney for Wayne County, Garfield Nichols, Edward T. Kelley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, Detroit (Robert N. Smiley, Detroit, of counsel, on the brief), for the people.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of negligent homicide, assigning as error the admission into evidence of testimony concerning the results of a test voluntarily taken by him on a so-called ‘Harger Drunkometer’ and deductions drawn therefrom as to his being under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident.
It is plaintiff's position, supported by proofs, that it is generally accepted by medical authorities (1) that a chemical analysis of a specimen of blood, urine or other body fluid will accurately disclose the percentage of alcohol contained in the blood and 72) that when the blood alcohol concentrate of a subject is 0.15 per cent or more, by weight, he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent of impairment of his ability to drive an automobile. On the basis of that general acceptance by the medical profession it has been held that evidence of the taking of such specimen at or near the time in question, of its chemical analysis, and of the alcoholic content of the blood as determined by such analysis, together with expert opinion testimony as to what the presence of such alcoholic content in the blood indicates with respect to the subject's intoxication or sobriety, are admissible. See 20 Am.Jur. (1948 Supp.), Evidence, § 876; 127 A.L.R. 1513; 159 A.L.R. 209;State v. Duguid, 50 Ariz. 276, 72 P.2d 435;State v. Morkrid, Iowa, 286 N.W. 412;Kuroske v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 234 Wis. 394, 291 N.W. 384,27 A.L.R. 1505.
Is there general scientific recognition that the breath test applied by the Harger Drunkometer will afford an accurate index of the alcoholic content of the blood? Two policemen, both trained in chemistry, one of whom studied the Drunkometer for a month under the inventor and then instructed the other with respect thereto, and a doctor who had worked as a student assistant to the inventor, Harger, gave complex explanations of the underlying theory and modus operandi of the device and testified for plaintiff that, in their opinion, the Drunkometer produces accurate results as to the alcoholic content of the blood. To the same effect is an article by Harger and associates entitled ‘A Rapid Chemical Test for Intoxication Employing Breath’ appearing in the journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 110, p. 779. Contra is the testimony of five doctors sworn for the defense, one of whom testified that ‘what is going on in this test is that you have got a continuous series of errors, some for and some against, so that the thing works like a slot machine’, and another of whom testified that most of the medical profession do not regard the instrument reliable. Their views find direct support in a report appearing in Vol. 26, p. 1572, Journ. of Lab. and Clin. Med., by Dr. Haggard, professor of physiology and director of the Alcohol Institute at Yale University, and others, and, indirectly, in other medical and scientific reports and articles. Under such state of the record there would seem to be applicable here what the supreme court of Wisconsin said concerning the so-called lie-detector in State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 246 N.W. 314, 317, 86 A.L.R. 611, as follows:
‘The present necessity for elaborate exposition of its theory and demonstration of its practical working, in order to convince the jury of its probative tendencies, together with the possibility of attacks upon the soundness of its underlying theory and its practical usefulness, may easily result in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barbara
...the theory and operation of the devices in the face of a difference of scientific opinion as to their accuracy." People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270, 274, 38 N.W.2d 322, 324 (1949). Compare, People v. Kenney, 354 Mich. 191, 196, 92 N.W.2d 335 (1958), where evidence of a speedwatch was admitted w......
-
People v. Zimmerman, 43
...that reasonable certainty follows from such tests, it would be error to admit in evidence the result thereof.' People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270, 272, 38 N.W.2d 322, 323 (1949) denying admission of the Drunkometer 'Is there general scientific recognition that the breath test applied by the Har......
-
State v. Collins
...Ins. Co., [8 Wis.2d 343, 99 N.W.2d 163 (1959) ]; breath analysis devices designed to test for intoxication, People v. Morse, [325 Mich. 270, 38 N.W.2d 322 (1949) ]; truth serum injections, State v. Linn, [93 Idaho 430, 462 P.2d 729 (1969) ]; blood tests, People v. Alston, [79 Misc.2d 1077, ......
-
Reed v. State
...State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 110 A.2d 588 (1954); Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266, 191 N.E.2d 479 (1963); People v. Morse, 325 Mich. 270, 38 N.W.2d 322 (1949); State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 52 N.W.2d 458 (1952); State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d 368 (Mo. 1972); Boeche v. State, 151 Neb.......