State v. Rowell
| Decision Date | 21 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2018-000022,Opinion No. 5832 |
| Citation | 436 S.C. 54,870 S.E.2d 175 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Adam ROWELL, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Billy J. Garrett, Jr., of The Garrett Law Firm, PC, Carson McCurry Henderson, of The Henderson Law Firm, PC, Jane Hawthorne Merrill, of Hawthorne Merrill Law, LLC, and Clarence Rauch Wise, all of Greenwood, all for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of Columbia, and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, all for Respondent.
LOCKEMY, A.J.:
Adam Rowell appeals his convictions for felony driving under the influence (DUI) resulting in death and felony DUI resulting in great bodily injury. On appeal, Rowell argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting blood samples into evidence without the proper chain of custody and because the samples were taken (1) after 50% of Rowell's blood volume was replaced, and (2) after 150% of Rowell's blood volume was replaced. Rowell also asserts the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing with a juror who failed to disclose his pending criminal charges during voir dire. We affirm.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 15, 2014, Rowell was in a head-on automobile accident, which seriously injured Matthew Sanders and killed Jeremy Cockrell. Cockrell was driving a red pickup truck with Sanders in the passenger seat, and Rowell was in a dark blue pickup truck. Following the collision, Rowell was indicted for felony DUI resulting in death and felony DUI resulting in great bodily injury.
During voir dire, the trial court asked, "[Has] any member of the jury panel or any member of your immediate family members or close personal friends ever been arrested and charged with any criminal offense through whatever state, local or federal law enforcement agency?" The trial court asked another nine questions before asking the jurors to approach the bench if any of the questions applied to them. Juror 164 did not respond and was seated on the jury.
At trial, Sanders testified he and Cockrell were driving to Greenwood when Rowell's truck crashed into them. Cockrell died from blunt force trauma at the scene. Officer Kelly Anderson, a member of the Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation Team (MAIT), explained the collision occurred because Rowell's truck drifted into Cockrell's lane. According the MAIT investigation, one second prior to the collision, Rowell was traveling at sixty-nine miles per hour and Cockrell's truck was traveling at twenty-four miles per hour.
Emergency responders testified they could smell alcohol when they arrived. Open and unopened beers were in Rowell's truck, spilled alcohol was on Rowell's floorboard, and multiple beer cans were on the ground near the collision. Rowell, who was also seriously injured in the collision, received 2000 milliliters of intravenous (IV) fluid and a 500 milliliter blood transfusion
on site, and was airlifted to Greenville Memorial Hospital. The flight records show the helicopter arrived at the hospital at 8:59 p.m.
The trial court held an in camera chain of custody hearing to address whether blood drawn from Rowell when he arrived at the hospital (Sample A) was admissible. Angela Waites, the flight nurse, stated it took twenty-four minutes to get Rowell to Greenville Memorial Hospital. She testified she observed Amanda Baker, an emergency room (ER) nurse, draw Sample A and believed it was drawn from Rowell's right arm because Baker was standing on Rowell's right-hand side.
Nurse Baker testified she did not recall Rowell as a patient because she cares for and draws blood samples from hundreds of patients. She explained that Rowell's medical documentation indicated Dr. Bradley Snow took Sample A from a central line and handed it to her. Nurse Baker testified that after blood is drawn from a central line, a technician takes it to the lab. Bill Evans was the technician listed on the medical records. Rowell's medical records indicated his blood was drawn at 9:08 p.m.; however, the hospital's audit trail indicated it was drawn at 8:54 p.m.
Robert Smith, the lab technician at Greenville Memorial Hospital, testified that according to the audit trail for Sample A, he received it in the lab at 9:24 p.m. Smith did not remember receiving this sample specifically because of the large number of specimens he regularly tested. He testified it was hospital policy to hand-deliver ER specimens to the lab and test them right away.
Dr. John Reddic, an expert in clinical chemistry from Greenville Memorial Hospital, testified the hospital's audit trail showed Nurse Baker drew Sample A and Robert Smith received it for testing. According to Reddic, Sample A showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) between .175 and .189. Dr. Reddic noted Sample A was controlled and handled within the hospital's normal protocol.
Rowell argued the conflicting time reports in the medical records suggested there were two separate blood draws, one at 8:54 p.m. and one at 9:08 p.m. However, the State asserted there was only one audit trail for blood and the records did not reflect a second draw. The trial court ruled the State established the chain of custody, the audit trail reflected an 8:54 p.m. blood draw, and a discrepancy in the notation of the time of the blood draw did not render the evidence inadmissible. During trial, the relevant medical witnesses testified similarly to their in camera testimony.
Dr. Reddic testified that a "clock slop" time discrepancy of several minutes can occur where records have been created based on clocks that were not synced. He also explained there is a lag time between when a doctor orders a blood draw, the drawing of the blood, and the subsequent transport of the blood draw to the lab, and "thirty minutes is appropriate."
Dr. Snow, Rowell's surgeon, testified that during surgery, Rowell received 3,150 milliliters of blood, 360 milliliters of plasma, 3,000 milliliters of saline, and 3,000 milliliters of Plasma-Lyte. He stated 53% of Rowell's blood was replaced and he would have died without the transfusion.
After Rowell's surgery, Officer Smith acquired a search warrant for Rowell's blood (Sample B). Rowell objected to the admission of Sample B, arguing that when it was taken, 52% of his blood had been replaced and a BAC test of that blood would be unreliable. The trial court held another in camera hearing.
Dr. Jimmie Valentine, a defense expert, testified that when Sample B was drawn from Rowell, he had received fluids that totaled 161.7% of his blood volume. He explained Sample B was not an accurate indication of what Rowell's blood was like during the collision. He stated that "any value that one would find or try to attach to [Sample B] has very little scientific meaning because of th[e] volume that [went] into him." Dr. Valentine explained Sample B included 4.9 milligrams per liter of Benadryl
, which was a toxic dose, and Rowell's medical records indicated the hospital did not give him Benadryl. Further, he explained Sample B had acetones, which was indicative of someone who was diabetic and Rowell's medical records did not indicate he had diabetes. Dr. Valentine testified the methodology and science used in the BAC testing was reliable; however, he questioned the validity of the results.
Dr. Valentine stated the BAC from Sample B was consistent with Rowell's blood having been diluted by transfusions. He explained a person with a BAC of .18 would normally have a BAC of .12 after four hours and that the dilution of the blood due to a transfusion could explain why Sample B's BAC was .09. Dr. Valentine agreed that Sample B would have included a percentage of Rowell's blood that had remained in his system after the transfusion.
The trial court held that because Dr. Valentine did not attack the validity of the methodology of the test, Sample B was admissible. Specifically, the trial court clarified it did not find the results reliable, only that the methodologies and procedures used in the testing were reliable.
Rowell testified he did not have diabetes, nor did he use Benadryl
. He stated he drank twenty-four ounces of beer approximately four hours before the accident. The jury convicted Rowell of felony DUI resulting in death and felony DUI resulting in great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment. After trial, Rowell learned Juror 164 had been arrested and charged with a crime in Greenwood County shortly before his trial. Rowell moved for a new trial, arguing—among other things—that Juror 164 failed to disclose his arrest during voir dire. However, Rowell did not request that the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing.
At the hearing on Rowell's motion for a new trial, he argued he would not have seated Juror 164 on the jury had he known of his arrest because the juror could have had an incentive to help the State. Rowell stated he did not contact Juror 164 because Juror 164 was represented by counsel, who told them Juror 164 would not be speaking with them. Rowell did not request a separate evidentiary hearing on the juror issue and did not subpoena Juror 164. Following the hearing and before the trial court issued an order, Rowell sent an email to the trial court requesting a hearing with the juror.
The trial court denied Rowell's motion for a new trial. The trial court stated that on its face, the question asked during voir dire was comprehensible to the average juror; however, the court noted that it was the first of ten questions the juror had to remember and the amount of time between question and answer "could be confusing to the average juror." The trial court further opined because an arrest is a public arrest record, the juror did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial