 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CITY OF COLUMBIA v. MOORE4/17/1995
The City of Columbia appeals the circuit court reversal of James C. Moore's municipal court conviction for driving under the influence. The circuit court overturned the jury verdict in the municipal court on the grounds that Moore's blood sample analysis was improperly admitted into evidence, and remanded the case for a new trial. The City appeals. We affirm.
Moore was involved in an accident in February of 1992. Officer Wadford was dispatched to the scene and placed Moore under arrest for
The sole issue on appeal is whether the blood sample results were properly admitted into evidence in the municipal court. In its appellate capacity, the circuit court held the blood sample was improperly admitted because the City failed to present any evidence that it complied with the procedure set forth in S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-2950 (1991) (the implied consent statute). Moore's conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded to the municipal court for a new trial.
Section 56-5-2950(a) reads in pertinent part: "At the direction of the arresting officer the person first must be offered a breath test to determine the alcohol concentration of his blood. If the person is physically unable to provide an acceptable breath sample because he has an injured mouth, is unconscious, dead or for any other reason considered acceptable by licensed medical personnel, a blood sample may be taken." (Emphasis added). Moore received no injury to his mouth and was not unconscious. Nonetheless, Wadford concluded Moore was unable to provide an acceptable breath sample and ordered a blood sample. The circuit court held, however, that the City failed to present any evidence at trial that Wadford's conclusion was based upon a reason found acceptable by licensed medical personnel as required by the statute. We agree.
In State v. Stacy, 315 S.C. 105, 431 S.E.2d 640, 641 (Ct.App. 1993), our court interpreted § 56-5-2950 to require licensed medical personnel "to determine whether an acceptable reason exists for finding that a person is unable to
In the case at bar, it is undisputed Moore did not have an injury to the mouth and was conscious at all times. Therefore, the City was required under § 56-5-2950 to present evidence Moore was physically unable to give an acceptable breath sample for a reason found acceptable by licensed personnel. Because the City did not do so, the municipal court erred in admitting the blood sample into evidence.
The City argues Wadford's belief that Moore would not be released for long period of time, coupled with the reasonable inferences which can be derived from the circumstances under which he was transported to the hospital is a sufficient basis to conclude Moore was physically incapable of giving a breath sample. However reasonable these conclusions may be under the circumstance, they are legally insufficient. As we stated in State v. Stacy:
We are required to read the statute as a whole to
determine the intent of the legislature. Viewed in
this manner, we hold that the statute requires a
licensed physician, licensed registered nurse, or
other medical personnel trained to take blood
samples in a licensed medical facility, who is
directed by an officer to take a blood sample, to
determine whether an acceptable reason exists for
finding that a person is unable to provide an
acceptable breath sample.
431 S.E.2d at 641 (citing State v. Baker, 310 S.C. 510, 427 S.E.2d 670 (1993)).
To allow the arresting officer to make the determination that a person is physically unable to give an acceptable breath sample, absent an injured mouth, unconsciousness, or death, is a rela
Page 1 2 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|