State v. Baker

Decision Date07 November 1969
Docket NumberNo. 37181,37181
Citation171 N.W.2d 798,184 Neb. 724
PartiesSTATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Hiram Ray BAKER, Appellant.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. For the implied consent of a person to be effective, as provided in section 39--727.03, R.R.S.1943, the person must have been arrested or taken into custody before the test is given.

2. A statute providing that a presumption of intoxication arises under a determination that the amount of alcohol in the subject's body fluid at the time in question is 0.15 percent or more by weight, as shown by chemical analysis, is in derogation of the common law and subject to strict construction.

John McArthur, Lincoln, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., James J. Duggan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN and NEWTON, JJ.

SPENCER, Justice.

Defendant, Hiram Ray Baker, perfected an appeal to this court from a conviction for driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He set out four assignments of error. We consider only the second, that: 'The Court erred in admitting into evidence over objection the results of the blood test allegedly made.'

This prosecution grew out of a collision which occurred an U.S. Highway No. 77, approximately 1 3/4 miles north of Beatrice, at approximately 12:30 a.m., December 2, 1967. The evidence would indicate that the other car was across the centerline and struck defendant's car. After the accident defendant was pinned behind the steering wheel and his feet were caught in the car so that he could not be removed. He also sustained a severe cut on his forehead. No attempt was made to remove him until sometime after an ambulance arrived. He was then taken to the Mennonite Hospital in Beatrice.

A deputy sheriff who investigated the collision saw the defendant in the emergency room of the hospital approximately 2 hours after the accident but did not interview him until he was taken to his room. This interview lasted only 3 or 4 minutes. The sheriff of Gage County also saw the defendant in the emergency room, explained the implied consent law to him, and asked for a blood test which the defendant refused to give. The sheriff at no time advised the defendant that he was in custody or under arrest. The sheriff asked the doctor rendering emergency treatment to obtain a blood sample, but the doctor refused to take one unless the defendant gave his consent. Subsequently the doctor withdrew some blood which was given to the authorities. There is a dispute as to whether the defendant ever gave his consent but this point is immaterial herein....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Filmon v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1976
    ...den. 1973); State v. Towry, 26 Conn.Sup. 35, 210 A.2d 455 (1965); State v. Brunner, 211 Kan. 596, 507 P.2d 233 (1973); State v. Baker, 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798 (1969); State v. Richerson, 87 N.M. 437, 535 P.2d 644 (Ct.App.) cert. den. 87 N.M. 450, 535 P.2d 657 (1975) (taking blood sampl......
  • People v. Borchard-Ruhland, Docket No. 112436, Calendar No. 19.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1999
    ...N.W.2d 427 (1987); State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 697 P.2d 896 (1985); Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426 (1982); State v. Baker, 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798 (1969). 4. While conceding that the implied consent statute "provide[s] for the arrest of the driver," op. at 13, the dissent non......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1997
    ...State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 295, 697 P.2d 896 (1985); Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426, 427 (Ak.1982); State v. Baker, 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798, 800 (1969). As courts in other jurisdictions have also concluded, however, such evidence may be seized in accordance with general sear......
  • State v. Widenhofer
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1997
    ...he did not verbally arrest defendant and court found that defendant did not voluntarily consent to blood testing); State v. Baker (1969), 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798 (dispute existed whether defendant consented to blood testing, no dispute that defendant was not arrested until two days aft......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT