People v. Patino

• Citation: 447 Mich. 1008,526 N.W.2d 916
• Decision Date: 04 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 174738,174738
• Parties: People v. Patino (Arthur) NO. 100263. COA
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 916

526 N.W.2d 916

447 Mich. 1008

People v. Patino (Arthur)

NO. 100263. COA No. 174738.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 04, 1994

Disposition: Leave to appeal DENIED.

BOYLE, J., dissents and states as follows:

I would grant leave to appeal or remand to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the trial court correctly suppressed the results of a blood-alcohol test obtained pursuant to a search warrant and administered after a four-hour delay not attributed to the police or prosecution on the basis that the evidence was too prejudicial or had "no probative value."

The defendant, charged with OUIL as a third offender, refused a Breathalyzer request upon arrest. Delay was occasioned by the lapse of time in seeking and obtaining a search warrant and waiting for a doctor to draw the blood sample.

Although the applicable statute, M.C.L. § 257.625a(4); M.S.A. § 9.2325(1)(4), does not address a time limit between arrest and administration of a blood-alcohol test, the Court of Appeals has imposed a reasonable time after arrest limitation as a foundation for admissibility under MRE 104(a) and People v. Schwab, 173 Mich.App. 101, 433 N.W.2d 824 (1988).

Given the inevitable tendency of such a result to become a four-hour "rule" and the consequence of suppression as a matter of law, the issue is one of major significance to the prosecution of offenses involving the operation of motor vehicles while allegedly under the influence of intoxicants.

In addition, the relation between MRE 104(a), the burden of proof on preliminary questions concerning relevancy, and the foundation for admissibility of scientific evidence under Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), and MRE 702, is an issue of continuing significance in both civil and criminal jurisprudence. See People v. Burton, 433 Mich. 268, 445 N.W.2d 133 (1989), and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

I would grant leave to appeal.

RILEY and GRIFFIN, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.