 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. HENNEBERRY1/22/1997
Appellant, Ryan Henneberry, appeals a bench verdict finding him guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol, based on blood evidence taken by medical personnel for treatment and diagnostic purposes. We reverse and remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Shortly before 8:00 p.m. on September 11, 1993, defendant Ryan Henneberry, a juvenile, was driving his car when he failed to negotiate a curve and drove his car into a ditch. A nearby resident contacted the authorities and deputy David Boardman arrived at the site of the accident shortly thereafter. Medical personnel were already on the scene and deputy Boardman was only able to speak briefly with Henneberry before they took him to the county hospital. Henneberry had suffered a head injury and was bleeding profusely, but before being transported to the hospital, he submitted to and failed a preliminary breath test (PBT) at approximately 8:10 p.m.
Deputy Harley Pothoff was dispatched to the hospital to meet Henneberry, but by the time Pothoff arrived, Henneberry was [558 NW2d Page 709]
already in surgery. Deputy Pothoff was unable to form an opinion as to Henneberry's sobriety. While at the hospital, medical personnel (at the request of the attending physician) drew a sample of Henneberry's blood for diagnostic and treatment purposes. There was no written request for the blood test by deputy Pothoff under implied consent provisions. See Iowa Code § 321J.6 (1993). The specimen was subsequently processed and revealed a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.18.
Because Henneberry was a juvenile, deputy Pothoff contacted his parents while he was being treated. When they arrived at the hospital at approximately 11:10 p.m. that evening, Henneberry's medical treatment had concluded and Pothoff began the implied consent procedures. At 11:18 p.m., Henneberry and his parents consented to the withdrawal of a second blood specimen, pursuant to the implied consent law. That blood sample revealed a BAC of .125. Based on this result, deputy Pothoff immediately served Henneberry with a notice of revocation, pursuant to chapter 321J of the Code. The result of this sample, however, was later suppressed because deputy Pothoff failed to obtain proper consent.
Prior to trial, the prosecutor sought a subpoena duces tecum to obtain the medical records pertaining to the first blood specimen. Henneberry filed a motion to quash. The district court found that although the records fell within the scope of the physician-patient privilege, public policy demanded that the evidence be admitted. At the bench trial, the only evidence of Henneberry's BAC was the .18 obtained from the sample which had been taken for purposes of medical treatment and not pursuant to implied consent. This evidence was admitted over defendant's objections that it violated the statutory physician-patient privilege. See Iowa Code § 622.10. Solely on this evidence, the district court found Henneberry guilty of operating a motor vehicle while having a BAC of .10 or more, in violation of section 321J.2(1) of the Code. It is from this judgment that Henneberry appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review the trial court's interpretation of section 622.10 to determine if an error of law has occurred. State v. Deases, 518 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Iowa 1994); State v. Jones, 490 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Iowa 1992).
III. Issue on Appeal
The sole issue on appeal is whether the blood sample taken by the emergency room personnel is admissible in spite of the statutory physician-patient privilege.
Iowa Code section 622.10 prohibits a physician, surgeon, or physician's assistant from disclo
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|