State v. Guthrie
| Decision Date | 09 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 10735,10735 |
| Citation | 180 N.W.2d 143,85 S.D. 228 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Raymond Hugh GUTHRIE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Joseph H. Bottum, III, Pierre, for appellant.
Gordon Mydland, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Andre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquor. From the judgment and sentence entered thereon he appeals.
Because of the way defendant operated his car on the streets of Murdo, South Dakota, about 1 a.m. on May 2, 1968, he was stopped by a state motor patrolman and upon investigation was arrested on the charge of which he was convicted. The patrolman took him to the sheriff's office where defendant, after talking to his counsel by phone, indicated that he would submit to the requested chemical analysis of his blood. Arrangements for taking a blood sample were made with a local doctor. For that purpose they went to the hospital in Murdo. In the record, the one who withdrew the blood is referred to as Doctor Stevens. There is no showing by prefix of letters or otherwise to indicate that he is a medical practitioner.
Defendant urges three assignments of error, but they are all bottomed on his claim that a proper foundation had not been established for admitting in evidence the result of a chemical test performed upon blood taken from him. His specific complant is that there is no proof that the specimen tested was a true sample of his blood because of a failure to show that it was withdrawn in an approved manner.
While the patrolman testified that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the observations on which he based such opinion were minimal and contradicted by other evidence. The strong evidence of intoxication was the chemical test of his blood, testified to by the state chemist, which showed it to contain 0.19% By weight of alcohol. SDCL 32--23--7(3) provides that a defendant, in a prosecution of this kind, is presumed to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor if the alcohol content of his blood was 0.15% Or more by weight. The jury was so instructed.
Concerning the taking of blood samples for that purpose, SDCL 32--23--14 provides:
No doubt this restriction serves the dual purpose of protecting the well-being of the one from whom the blood is being taken and the reliability of the specimen. In Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 77 S.Ct. 408, 1 L.Ed.2d 448, it is intimated that a blood sample taken in an unskilled manner might be offensive to due process.
Doctor Stevens was not called as a witness. The patrolman testified that the doctor withdrew the blood and put in into a tube which the patrolman furnished him. It was then sealed and identifying marks placed thereon by the patrolman and by him stored in a refrigerator in the sheriff's office. The following day, after packing it in a paper container, he mailed it to the State Chemical Laboratory. The record is silent as to the manner in which the needle and the syringe used in withdrawing the blood were sterilized and as to how the area on the defendant's arm where the blood was taken was disinfected.
Authorities in this field seem agreed that in withdrawing blood for use in chemically determining its alcoholic content the skin, syringe, and needle should be disinfected and sterilized. They are also agreed that the use of alcohol, an alcohol preparation, or carbolic acid for these purposes could affect the reliability of the analytical results as to the amount of alcohol in the suspect's blood. These precautions are essential to the obtaining of a clean, safe blood specimen. See articles by Mason...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spry, 11053
...properly administered test results are available. In support of his final contention, the defendant relief upon State v. Guthrie, 1970, 85 S.D. 228, 180 N.W.2d 143. In Guthrie, we held that before the results of a blood alcohol test may be admitted into evidence, the state has the burden of......
-
State v. Helmer
...3 The prosecution, of course, has the burden of proving that the proper procedure and safeguards were used. State v. Guthrie, 85 S.D. 228, 180 N.W.2d 143 (1970). The trial court made extensive findings that support its conclusion of law which That the 900-A Breathalizer (sic) in this case w......
-
State v. Adams
...of the admissibility of scientific test results must show the reliability of the operator and the procedures. State v. Guthrie, 85 S.D. 228, 180 N.W.2d 143 (1970); State v. Spry, 87 S.D. 318, 207 N.W.2d 504, 510 (1973), overruled on other grounds State v. Buckingham, 90 S.D. 198, 240 N.W.2d......
-
Whetstone v. State
...the hospital notation does not state whether or not an alcohol wipe was used before the blood was extracted. See State v. Guthrie, 85 S.D. 228, 180 N.W.2d 143 (1970). Assuming that the blood specimen Mr. Baines examined was actually taken from the appellant there is no evidence of what was ......