State v. Brundt

• Decision Date: 17 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-95,84-95
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Christopher Lee BRUNDT, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 575

356 N.W.2d 575

STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Christopher Lee BRUNDT, Appellant.

No. 84-95.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 17, 1984.

David S. Nelson, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., John P. Messina, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Denver D. Dillard, County Atty., for appellee.

Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and HARRIS, McCORMICK, SCHULTZ, and CARTER, JJ.

CARTER, Justice.

Defendant Christopher Lee Brundt appeals from judgment of conviction of the offense of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants, contrary to Iowa Code section 321.281 (1981).

The single issue on appeal flows from defendant's contention that the trial information which initiated the present criminal prosecution was not filed within forty-five days of his arrest as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 27(2)(a). Defendant first made this contention in a motion to dismiss the information filed in advance of trial. In order to sustain this claim, the defendant must demonstrate that he was arrested on the present charge more than forty-five days prior to February 2, 1983. The trial court found that he was not, and we hold that that finding is supported by substantial evidence and dispositive of the claim made on appeal.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the information was submitted on agreed facts. From the record, it appears that, at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed, defendant was involved in an automobile collision which produced injuries rendering him unconscious for a period of approximately eleven days. Soon after the collision, defendant was taken to a hospital where, at the request of a peace officer made pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 321B, a licensed physician certified that defendant was unconscious and incapable of giving consent or refusal to a chemical test. Following such certification, a chemical test was performed on a sample of defendant's blood. The results of that test were used in evidence against defendant at his trial on the present charge. No objection has been made by defendant to the propriety of the procedures under which a sample of his blood was chemically tested.

The State certified at the hearing on the motion to dismiss that no formal arrest of the defendant was made prior to the filing of the trial information and that in lieu of arrest he had been given a citation to appear in court. The defendant does not dispute this fact but asserts, nevertheless, that there was a constructive arrest in connection with the withdrawal of a sample of his blood. His contention in his trial court motion was premised upon his belief that Iowa Code section 321B.3 (1981) was applicable to this case and mandated that a chemical test could be demanded "only after the...