State v. Bradley, 15307
| Decision Date | 17 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 15307,15307 |
| Citation | 578 P.2d 1267 |
| Parties | The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James W. BRADLEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Milton J. Hess, Davis County Atty., Farmington, for defendant and appellant.
Sumner J. Hatch, Donald R. Wilson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Before us is a defendant convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of 41-6-44, U.C.A.1953, in this case a lesser-included offense to a charge of criminal homicide. Affirmed. All statutory references are to U.C.A.1953.
On appeal, defendant contends the state failed to relate the results of a chemical breath analysis (administered to him nearly four hours after an accident), to the time of the accident. As a consequence, defendant maintains the trial court erred in admitting those results into evidence, and in instructing the jury regarding statutory presumptions. We disagree, and affirm the trial court.
Defendant testified that during the afternoon of Sept. 11, 1976, while working on his pick-up truck, he consumed four or five 12 oz. cans of 3.2 beer, the first can sometime shortly after 11:30 A.M. and the last shortly before 5:45 P.M. Thereafter, he drove several blocks to his brother-in-law's residence where he ate a piece of chicken, took one piece for the road and started home. This food was defendant's first sustenance since the previous evening.
At the intersection of State Road 106 and Center Street in North Salt Lake defendant's southbound truck collided with an eastbound vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle died from injuries sustained in the accident. Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Daryl Durrant testified he arrived at the accident scene at approximately 6:22 P.M., but did not observe the defendant until nearly an hour later. Noticing an odor of alcohol about him, Officer Durrant conducted a "field sobriety" test which required the defendant to perform several maneuvers. Unsatisfied with his performance, Durrant placed him under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. At 9:50 P.M., defendant submitted to a breathalyzer test at the Davis County Jail and a reading of .06% blood alcohol by weight was taken. Defendant was subsequently charged with criminal homicide in violation of 76-5-207.
During the course of the trial, defendant produced several witnesses who testified to his sobriety at the scene of the accident. The state relied on the testimony of Officer Durrant and another officer present at the scene, both of whom were of the opinion that defendant was under the influence of alcohol when observed by them. In addition, the state presented an expert witness, the Deputy State Medical Examiner, who testified as to alcohol "burn-off" rates in an attempt to relate the results of the breathalyzer test back to defendant's condition, at the time of the accident. At the trial's conclusion, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty to the charge of criminal homicide but found the defendant guilty of running a red light and driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Defendant first contends the trial court erred in admitting the results of the breathalyzer test. He bases this claim on the proposition that before such results can be admitted, they must be extrapolated back to the time of the accident by expert testimony; which, he alleges, the state failed to do.
Whether or not there has been sufficient relation back is irrelevant to the admissibility of the results of chemical analysis. Although the legislature has since set forth the requirement that expert testimony must establish the probative value of the results of chemical tests administered an hour or more after the alleged incident, 1 such was not the law at the time of this trial. We think that defendant's blood alcohol level at the time the test was administered was relevant to corroborate the testimony of the state's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Smith, 92-P-1805
...People v. Emery, 812 P.2d 665, 667 (Colo.App.1990). State v. Armstrong, 236 Kan. 290, 689 P.2d 897, 899-900 (1984). State v. Bradley, 578 P.2d 1267 (Utah 1978). State v. Carter, 142 Vt. 588, 590, 458 A.2d 1112 (1983). Indeed, in three instances, courts have thought retrograde extrapolation ......
-
State v. Armstrong, 56628
...v. Kappas, 120 Ill.App.3d 123, 76 Ill.Dec. 1, 458 N.E.2d 140 (1983); State v. Hendrickson, 240 N.W.2d 846 (N.D.1976); State v. Bradley, 578 P.2d 1267 (Utah 1978) (blood test given four hours after accident was admissible along with expert testimony on how to extrapolate the burn-off rate); ......
-
Commonwealth v. Senior
...to time of offense for blood test results to be admissible); Hartman v. State, 2 S.W.3d 490, 494 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999); State v. Bradley, 578 P.2d 1267, 1269 (Utah 1978); State v. Dumont, 146 Vt. 252, 254-255 (1985) ("relation back" testimony necessary to establish blood alcohol content at t......
-
Foos v. Terminix, 89,239
...blood alcohol level at the time of the accident. See, e.g., Stephens v. State, 127 Ga. App. 416, 193 S.E.2d 870 (1972); State v. Bradley, 578 P.2d 1267 (Utah 1978) (blood test given 4 hours after accident was admissible along with expert testimony on how to extrapolate the burn-off rate); S......