State v. Stutliff
| Citation | 97 Idaho 523,547 P.2d 1128 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 11892,11892 |
| Parties | The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Duane S. SUTLIFF, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Boise, E. C. Rood, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., & Prosecuting Atty., Gem County, Emmett, Gordon S. Nielson, Senior Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael L. Schindele, of Derr, Derr, Williamson & Poole, Boise, for defendant-respondent.
On August 8, 1974, defendant-respondent Duane S. Sutliff was charged by information with involuntary manslaughter after the pickup truck he was driving collided with a motorcycle, fatally injuring its driver. Trial of the matter was concluded and judgment entered on a jury verdict finding the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. During trial the state presented testimony showing that breath and blood specimens were taken from the defendant with his consent, pursuant to I.C. § 49-352, in order to determine the alcohol content ot his blood. The samples were taken some fifty to sixty minutes after the accident. The trial court, however, excluded evidence of the results of tests made on these samples on the ground that the state must first present an expert qualified to extrapolate 1 the results back to the time of the accident. This ruling was apparently premised on the assumption that only intoxication at the time of the accident is relevant to a prosecution under I.C. § 49-1102 (Driving While Under the Influence). The state was unable to produce a witness qualified to make this extrapolation back, and a subsequent offer of proof was denied. The state appeals from the ruling of the trial judge pursuant to I.C. § 19-2804(6), 2 and hence the opinion of this Court is merely advisory in nature. State v. Berlin, 95 Idaho 225, 506 P.2d 122 (1973).
The primary question for resolution by this Court is whether the results of properly administered blood alcohol tests must be related back to the time of the alcohol related offense as a foundational prerequisite to admissability.
Naturally, samples of blood, breath or other bodily substances obtained at the time of the accident would be ideal. However, extraction of the samples oftern requires a trip to a hospital or other medical facility and the exigencies of accidents may require a further delay. Frequently this works to the advantage of the defendant since the blood alcohol level is generally recognized to decline over time at a fairly predictable pace. However, as respondent points out, the interval of time between the offense and the extraction of the sample does not always work to the advantage of the defendant since the decline in blood alcohol does not begin for 45 to 60 minutes after the last drink, the so-called 'peak' period. State v. Turner, 94 Idaho 548, 494 P.2d 146 (1972).
Respondent argued successfully at trial that the possibility that his blood alcohol was lower at the time of the accident than at the time of extraction of the samples rendered the results inadmissible absent a witness qualified to extrapolate the results back to the time of the accident. We disagree. At the least, the test results are relevant to corroborate witnesses' testimony of observed physical manifestations of intoxication. The lapse of time prior to the extraction of samples goes to the weight to be afforded the test results and not to their admissibility. State ex rel. Williams v. City Court of City of Tuscon, 15 Ariz.App. 229, 487 P.2d 766 (1971) citing State v. Gallant, 108 N.H. 72, 227 A.2d 597 (1967).
A more difficult question is presented by the language of I.C. § 49-1102. That statute provides that in a prosecution for Driving While Under theInfluence certain presumptions arise following proof that a named percentage of alcohol was in defendant's blood '* * * at the time of the alleged offense as shown by chemical analysis of the defendant's blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance * * *.' 3
We hold that this statute does not require extrapolation back but establishes that the percentage of blood alcohol as shown by chemical analysis relates back to the time of the alleged offense for purposes of applying the statutory presumption. This holding is in accord with those of other jurisdictions who have considered the question. Jackson v. City of Roanoke, 210 Va. 659, 173 S.E.2d 836 (1970); see also State v. Kohlasch, 11 Or.App. 459, 502 P.2d 1158 (1972). A contrary result could defeat the statute entirely since an extrapolation, particularly to a period prior to defendant's 'peak' period, would often be based...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mertz
...variously estimated as from 45 minutes to an hour and a half (Fuenning v. Superior Ct., 139 Ariz. 590, 680 P.2d 121; State v. Sutliff, 97 Idaho 523, 547 P.2d 1128; People v. Kappas, 120 Ill.App.3d 123, 76 Ill.Dec. 1, 458 N.E.2d 140; State v. Gallant, 108 N.H. 72, 227 A.2d 597; Commonwealth ......
-
Marsalis v. State
...267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (quoting Com. v. Senior , 433 Mass. 453, 744 N.E.2d 614, 619 (2001) ); see also State v. Sutliff, 97 Idaho 523, 524 n.1, 547 P.2d 1128, 1129 n.1 (1976) ("The term extrapolation designates the process of determining the percentage of alcohol in the blood at a given n......
-
State v. White, CA-CR
...evidence corroborating the .234 reading and demonstrating that it was not a mistake. Fuenning, supra. We agree with State v. Sutliff, 97 Idaho 523, 547 P.2d 1128 (1976), that to require the state to show how much the defendant drank would present it with an intolerable burden, since such in......
-
State v. Robinett, 30842.
...including evidence extrapolating the result back to the time of the alleged offense. This case is distinguishable from State v. Sutliff, 97 Idaho 523, 547 P.2d 1128 (1976), where we held BAC test results need not be related back to the time of the offense as a foundational prerequisite to a......