Willis v. State, No. 1249
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | WEANT |
| Citation | 460 A.2d 1043,55 Md.App. 65 |
| Parties | Caroleann WILLIS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Docket Number | No. 1249 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 1983 |
Page 65
v.
STATE of Maryland.
[460 A.2d 1044]
Page 66
Kathleen M. Brown, Assigned Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender of Maryland on brief, for appellant.Ann E. Singleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Alexander L. Cummings, Asst. Atty. Gen., William R. Hymes, State's Atty. for Howard County and Mary K. O'Donnell, Asst. State's Atty. for Howard County, on brief, for appellee.
Argued before WEANT, BISHOP and ALPERT, JJ.
WEANT, Judge.
In the early morning hours of 25 December 1981, Caroleann Willis, appellant, was the driver of a car involved in a two-vehicle accident in Howard County. Two occupants of the other automobile died as a result of the collision. Appellant sustained injuries to her head, ribs, and knee. After treatment for her injuries at St. Agnes Hospital, appellant consented to a blood alcohol test at the request of Officer Cook of the Howard County Police Department. The test results indicated a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15 percent. Appellant was formally arrested six days later.
Page 67
Appellant elected a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County where she was found guilty of two counts of manslaughter by automobile, guilty of driving while intoxicated, and divers traffic violations. A total of five years' imprisonment was imposed. The last three years of that sentence were suspended and a five-year period of supervised probation was imposed to follow any term of incarceration. Additionally, fines totaling $600 were levied on appellant for the traffic violations.
Appellant challenges the admissibility of the BAC evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions for manslaughter by automobile.
A motion was filed to suppress evidence of the BAC test on the grounds that the test was administered in contravention of Md.Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings (C & JP) § 10-303. That statute requires:
The specimen of breath or blood shall be taken within two hours after the person is apprehended.
Also, C & JP § 10-309(a) provides that "[e]vidence of chemical analysis is not admissible if obtained contrary to [the provisions of subtitle 3, Title 10 of the C & JP Article]." The interplay between C & JP § 10-303 and § 10-309 was examined by Chief Judge Orth in Major v. State, 31 Md.App. 590, 595, 358 A.2d 609 (1976):
It appears that if a chemical analysis is made from a specimen taken more than two hours after the person is apprehended, evidence thereof may be excluded at the criminal trial.
This case requires us to determine when an individual is "apprehended" within the meaning of C & JP § 10-303. Appellant argues that the two-hour clock starts ticking as soon as the police officer has "the possibility of intoxication firmly in mind." The State contends, citing both Webster's and Black's dictionaries as authorities, that apprehension means arrest.
Page 68
We reject both interpretations. The State's theory would lead to absurd results in this case, and many like it, when the actual arrest takes place several days after the accident. A sample taken within two hours of arrest would reflect the BAC level at the time it is withdrawn, not at the time of the incident. In the instant case, arrest occurred six days after the accident and, a blood sample taken at the time would be irrelevant to the issue of appellant's sobriety at the time of the accident. Whenever possible, we shun a construction of a statute which would lead to absurd consequences. [460 A.2d 1045] Pan Am. Sulphur v. State Dep't, 251 Md. 620, 627, 248 A.2d 354 (1967) and cases cited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Balt. City Police Dep't v. Potts, Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019
...the officers were acting maliciously and intentionally, and therefore outside 227 A.3d 199 the scope of employment. See id. at 171, 460 A.2d at 1043. We reiterated, however, that an employer "may be held liable for the intentional torts of [an employee] where the [employee]’s actions a......
-
Balt. City Police Dep't v. Potts, Misc. No. 6
...allegations, the officers were acting maliciously and intentionally, and therefore outside the scope of employment. See id. at 171, 460 A.2d at 1043. We reiterated, however, that an employer "may be held liable for the intentional torts of [an employee] where the [employee]'s actions a......
-
Nast v. Lockett, No. 91
...cannot be said, as appellant contends, to equate intoxication with gross negligence. 42 Md.App. at 170, 399 A.2d 932. In Willis v. State, 55 Md.App. 65, 460 A.2d 1043 (1983), the Court of Special Appeals, quoting Blackwell, held in an automobile manslaughter case that Willis' "degree o......
-
Willis v. State, No. 90
...advised Willis of her rights, and that the trial court properly admitted evidence of the blood alcohol test results. Willis v. State, 55 Md.App. 65, 69, 460 A.2d 1043, 1045 (1983). We granted certiorari to consider the important evidentiary question The tragic circumstances of this case are......
-
Balt. City Police Dep't v. Potts, Misc. No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019
...the officers were acting maliciously and intentionally, and therefore outside 227 A.3d 199 the scope of employment. See id. at 171, 460 A.2d at 1043. We reiterated, however, that an employer "may be held liable for the intentional torts of [an employee] where the [employee]’s actions a......
-
Balt. City Police Dep't v. Potts, Misc. No. 6
...allegations, the officers were acting maliciously and intentionally, and therefore outside the scope of employment. See id. at 171, 460 A.2d at 1043. We reiterated, however, that an employer "may be held liable for the intentional torts of [an employee] where the [employee]'s actions a......
-
Nast v. Lockett, No. 91
...cannot be said, as appellant contends, to equate intoxication with gross negligence. 42 Md.App. at 170, 399 A.2d 932. In Willis v. State, 55 Md.App. 65, 460 A.2d 1043 (1983), the Court of Special Appeals, quoting Blackwell, held in an automobile manslaughter case that Willis' "degree o......
-
Willis v. State, No. 90
...advised Willis of her rights, and that the trial court properly admitted evidence of the blood alcohol test results. Willis v. State, 55 Md.App. 65, 69, 460 A.2d 1043, 1045 (1983). We granted certiorari to consider the important evidentiary question The tragic circumstances of this case are......