Smith v. State, 7 Div. 243
| Decision Date | 23 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 243 |
| Citation | 460 So.2d 343 |
| Parties | Donald Wayne SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
R.D. Pitts, Talladega, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Fred F. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant Donald Wayne Smith was convicted of murder and was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment.
The evidence shows that on March 6, 1983, a vehicle driven by the appellant collided head-on with an automobile driven by Gary Watts in Talladega County on Highway 77. Gary Watts was accompanied by his wife, Sharon L. Watts, who was riding in the front passenger seat. She was killed instantly as a result of the collision. Gary Watts was transported first to Citizens Hospital in Talladega, and then to the University of Alabama Trauma Center in Birmingham, where he died as a result of injuries received in the collision. Both Gary Watts and Sharon Watts were tested for alcohol and drug consumption. These tests were negative except for the presence of aspirin in the blood of Gary Watts.
An officer at the scene of the accident ordered that the appellant be given a blood alcohol test after he smelled what he thought was alcohol in the appellant's van. This test was performed on appellant at Citizens Hospital in Talladega while he was unconscious as a result of the collision. This test revealed a blood alcohol level of .25, greatly exceeding the statutory level of intoxication of .10.
The appellant contends that the court committed reversible error in allowing the results of the blood alcohol test into evidence. Specifically, he contends that the person who withdrew the sample of blood was unqualified to do so under the Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health Relating to the Alabama Chemical Test for Intoxication Act. After a careful examination of these rules, we find that they are applicable only to the person who actually performs the chemical analysis, not the person who withdraws the blood.
The statute, Acts 1980, No. 80-434, states in section (a)(2) that "only a physician, registered nurse (or other qualified person) may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content therein." The technician who withdrew the blood testified that she was licensed through the American Society of Clinical Pathologists and was a member of the American Society of Medical Technologists. We find that these qualifications were sufficient to meet the requirements set out in section a(2) of the Chemical Test for Intoxication Act. In addition, the appellant did not specifically object to the technician's testimony at trial or make a motion to exclude evidence produced by the blood test on the basis that she was not qualified to extract the blood.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the results of the chemical analysis of the appellant's blood.
We will now address the five issues raised by the defendant in his letter to this court.
The appellant first contends that the presence of Mrs. Dee Fine 1 in the courtroom influenced the judge's decision in sentencing. We find this contention meritless. Anyone may attend a public trial. To suggest that any particular person's attendance could improperly influence the judge's decision is an affront to the integrity of the trial court and merits no further attention here.
The appellant next contends that the technician had no right to withdraw the blood sample from him and that he did not authorize a blood alcohol test.
We have already addressed the qualifications of the technician and have determined that she was qualified to withdraw the blood sample under the Alabama Chemical Test for Intoxication Act.
Appellant's contention that he did not authorize the test and thus that the blood sample should not have been taken is also without merit. Section 32-5-192(a), Code of Alabama 1975 states:
"any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State
...his acts, brought about the collision and death of the deceased. Jolly v. State, 395 So.2d 1135 (Ala.Crim.App.1981)." Smith v. State, 460 So.2d 343, 346 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). The record indicates that the appellant had previously undergone alcoholic treatment and had been arrested for a D.U.I.......
-
Love v. State
...reckless indifference to the probable consequences of his acts, brought about the collison and death of the deceased." Smith v. State, 460 So.2d 343, 346 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). See also Jolly v. State, 395 So.2d 1135, 1139-40 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Commander v. State, 374 So.2d 910, 913-15 (Ala.Cr.......
-
Weaver v. State
...showing of intoxication, the prosecution need not establish that the defendant was aware of the risk. For example, in Smith v. State, 460 So.2d 343, 346 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), wherein the court upheld a universal malice murder conviction arising out of an automobile accident caused by the appel......
-
State v. McNaught
...insufficient to demonstrate actual prejudice so as to require reversal as a matter of constitutional due process. In Smith v. State, 460 So.2d 343 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), the defendant Smith was convicted of murder resulting from a head-on automobile collision. The evidence showed that the def......