Whetstone v. State
Decision Date | 24 November 1981 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 321 |
Citation | 407 So.2d 854 |
Parties | Willie WHETSTONE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles Price, Montgomery, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jeffrey H. Long, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Murder; ten years.
This is a vehicular homicide case. The appellant was indicted under Ala.Code § 13A-6-2(a)(2) (Supp.1977) for causing the death of another person while recklessly engaging in conduct which created a grave risk of death to a person other than himself under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. The appellant was charged specifically with causing the deaths of Mary Miniard and Floyd Edwards by his operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquors or narcotic drugs.
Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tended to show that the appellant's Pontiac collided with a Pinto automobile, killing the occupants in the Pinto, Floyd Edwards and Mary Miniard, at approximately 1:00 A. M. on May 3, 1980. In checking the extent of the appellant's injuries as he lay "slumped over the wheel," the officers who arrived on the scene detected a "strong odor of an alcoholic nature about his person." Hospital records were introduced into evidence, over objection which, indicated that appellant's blood had a .23% ethyl alcohol content. There was no suggestion that either of the victims were under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The appellant testified in his own behalf that he had had two mixed drinks and half a beer at a party over a period of approximately three and a half hours prior to the accident. He stated that he had his last drink "twenty or thirty minutes" before he left the party.
The crux of this appeal concerns what effect the admission of hospital records has on proving the chain of custody of evidence. Specifically, we are faced with the question whether the introduction of hospital records in conformity with Ala.Code §§ 12-21-5, -6, -7, (1975) dispenses with the requirement that the chain of custody for a blood sample allegedly taken from the appellant be proved.
Mr. Robert L. Baines, a medical laboratory technologist testified for the State that Alabama Reference Laboratories, Inc., the company by whom he was employed, did "blood work" for St. Margaret's Hospital in Montgomery. Defense counsel questioned the witness on voir dire examination and ascertained that Mr. Baines had not taken the blood sample in question from the appellant. Defense counsel then vigorously objected to any further testimony by Mr. Baines concerning the blood sample until it was "shown that someone duly qualified and licensed took the blood sample from him."
Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel argued that the State had not followed the guidelines set out in Patton v. City of Decatur, 337 So.2d 321 (Ala.1976), relating to Ala.Code § 32-5-193 (1975) 1, which deals with the proper methods approved by the State Board of Health for the admission of intoxication results. This statute is commonly known as the Alabama Implied Consent Law.
The assistant district attorney informed the trial court that
Indeed, there is no requirement that § 32-5-193 be used as the exclusive means for admitting intoxication test results. The Alabama Supreme Court recently stated in McGough v. Slaughter, 395 So.2d 972, 975 (Ala.1981):
While it is unnecessary for the prosecution to resort to a chemical test in order to make out a prima facie case of vehicular homicide, Patton, 337 So.2d at 324; Commander v. State, 374 So.2d 910, 917 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), writ quashed, 374 So.2d 921 (Ala.1979), if a party wishes to have the results of a blood alcohol test admitted into evidence he has two choices; either he must show that the tests were taken in conformity with § 32-5-193, or he must lay the proper foundation for their admission under general evidence principles. McGough, 395 So.2d at 977. The admission of blood alcohol test results for which neither of these procedures is followed results in reversible error. McGough, supra.
Since the State conceded that it was not proceeding under § 32-5-193 because it could not meet the requirements of that section, it was incumbent upon the State to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the appellant's blood alcohol test results under general evidence principles. McGough, supra. Following this alternative it was necessary for the State to establish that procedures were followed which would insure the reliability of the test results. In order for the test results to be reliable, and thus relevant to the matter at issue, the results must be from generally accepted tests conducted under conditions which do not impeach the reliability of the testing procedure. McGough, 395 So.2d at 977. The burden of laying the predicate generally necessary for the admission of scientific test results is extensive, McGough, supra.
With these principles in mind, we must now look to the record to see how the State attempted to meet its burden of proof under general rules of evidence. After the State's admission that it was not proceeding under § 32-5-193, the following exchange occurred:
Continuing on voir dire examination by defense counsel, Mr. Baines testified that he received the blood sample in question from his immediate superior, Mrs. Brenda Durden. Mr. Baines stated that he did not know from whom Mrs. Durden had received the blood sample. Defense counsel then remarked:
Mr. Baines then testified for the State that the blood sample he tested "was marked with the date that it was drawn by the patient's name, the hospital it came from, and the physician who ordered it." He stated that the above information on the vial of blood he examined corresponded with the hospital records in question. Mr. Baines's voir dire was concluded with the following exchange:
The trial court decided to allow Mr. Baines to testify before the jury and to "determine later on whether to leave that testimony in." Mr. Baines was presented to the jury as "an expert witness on blood alcohol analyses."
Mr. Baines was permitted to testify...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peoples v. State
...actually came from Judy Franklin, and that a proper chain of custody of the blood sample was not proven. He cites Whetstone v. State, 407 So.2d 854 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). We do not agree with the appellant's The appellant claims that the jailers seized a tape recorder provided to him by During ......
-
Prewitt v. State
...tests, "are admissible, provided a proper foundation is laid." Chatom v. State, 348 So.2d 838 (Ala.1977); see, Whetstone v. State, 407 So.2d 854 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), and authorities therein cited; Moore v. State, 442 So.2d 164 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); see also, Coleman v. State, 423 So.2d 276 (......
-
Pickett v. State
...as required by Section 12-21-5. 1 Sections 12- 2-6 and -7 must be read in conjunction with Section 12-21-5. Whetstone v. State, 407 So.2d 854, 860 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). Section 12-21-5 is a "specialized business record statute ... which renders admissible a certified copy of hospital records t......
-
D.E.R. v. State
...by Section 12–21–5[, Ala. Code 1975.] Section 12–2–6 and –7 must be read in conjunction with Section 12–21–5. Whetstone v. State, 407 So.2d 854, 860 (Ala. Cr. App. 1981). Section 12–21–5 is a ‘specialized business record statute ... which renders admissible a certified copy of hospital reco......