People v. Schwab
| Decision Date | 13 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 101207 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matt John SCHWAB, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Bryan E. Graham, Pros. Atty., for the people.
Bloomquist & Hunter by John G. Hunter, Grayling, for defendant-appellee.
Before WAHLS, P.J., and BEASLEY and BURRESS, * JJ.
The people appeal by leave granted a circuit court order affirming the district court's suppression of the results of two Breathalyzer tests given to defendant. The defendant was being prosecuted for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, M.C.L. Sec. 257.625; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2325.
Defendant was arrested at 1:25 a.m. Breathalyzer tests were administered at 3:27 a.m. and 3:38 a.m., 2 1/4 hours after defendant was first stopped by the police. Defendant moved to suppress the results and the district court granted the motion. The people sought leave to appeal in the circuit court. Leave was granted in the form of an order for the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and render a decision after hearing evidence on the effect of the passage of time on the reliability of the Breathalyzer tests.
After conducting the hearing, the district court ruled that due to the delay in administering the Breathalyzer tests, they were not sufficiently probative of the defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of his arrest. The circuit court then affirmed the district court's decision.
Both parties in this case invite us to establish a rule which would include or exclude the results of a Breathalyzer test, depending on the time frame in which the test is given. We decline the invitation. As we see it, the issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in not admitting the results of defendant's Breathalyzer tests. We find that it did not.
In order for the results of chemical tests of blood alcohol to be admitted into evidence, the proponent of such tests must meet four foundational requirements. First, it must be shown that the operator is qualified. Second, the proper method or procedure must be demonstrated as having been followed in the tests. Third, the tests must have been performed within a reasonable time after the arrest. Finally, the testing device must be shown to be reliable. People v. Kozar, 54 Mich.App. 503, 509, n. 2, 221 N.W.2d 170 (1974), lv. den. 392 Mich. 819 (1974). Failure to meet any of these foundational requirements will preclude the use of the test results. People v. Krulikowski, 60 Mich.App. 28, 32-33, 230 N.W.2d 290 (1975).
In the instant case, the only error raised by defendant relates to the reasonable time prerequisite. Neither the arrest nor the other prerequisites are challenged. Defendant relies on Krulikowski for the rule that the prerequisites bear on the admissibility of the tests, not merely the weight to be assigned such evidence. Of the prerequisites set out in Kozar, all of them, except for the reasonable time requirement, are objective standards, capable of being precisely determined. This being the case, whether a sufficient foundation has been laid for the admission of evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court. People v. Harris, 64 Mich.App. 503, 508, 236 N.W.2d 118 (1975).
In this case, the district court heard extensive testimony pertaining to the reasonableness of the delay in administering the Breathalyzer tests. Experts from both sides testified about the rate at which alcohol is metabolized, how likely it is to be absorbed into the stomach, and the many variables that can have an effect on the rate of absorption and metabolism. The district court concluded that the tests were too remote in time to give any reliable indication of defendant's blood alcohol content at the time he was driving.
This Court in Kozar, supra, held that the prosecutor has no duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lucas
...that the accuracy of the methods used is a requisite element of establishing a sufficient foundation. See, e.g., People v. Schwab, 173 Mich.App. 101, 103, 433 N.W.2d 824 (1988); People v. Soltis, 104 Mich.App. 53, 55, 304 N.W.2d 811 (1981); People v. Krulikowski, 60 Mich.App. 28, 32-33, 230......
-
People v. Sloan, 100580
...a foundational requirement of proof that the test was performed within a reasonable time after arrest must be met. People v. Schwab, 173 Mich.App. 101, 433 N.W.2d 824 (1988) (affirmed suppression of Breathalyzer tests performed 2 1/4 hours after the defendant was first stopped by the police......
-
People v. Hanna
... ... Defendant also argues that the results of his blood test were inadmissible because his blood was not timely drawn. Again, we disagree. The reasonableness of any time lapse is consigned to the trial court's sound discretion. People v. Schwab, 173 Mich.App. 101, 104, 433 N.W.2d 824 ... (1988). We find no abuse of discretion. Particularly where an expert testified that the delay was reasonable, a seventy-minute delay, without more, does not render the blood evidence inadmissible. See People v. Jacobsen, 448 Mich. 639, 641, 532 ... ...
-
People v. Wager
...the foundation in any given case and its determination should not be lightly set aside. Id. The parties rely on People v. Schwab, 173 Mich.App. 101, 103, 433 N.W.2d 824 (1988), where this Court reiterated the four prerequisites to the admission of chemical blood test results. As in this cas......