 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartel v. State8/27/1985
fact. Nurse Westphal-Marcus testified that the records did not disclose specifically the time of the blood drawing, but only established that the I.V. was commenced at 3:30 and that mannitol was given to Mr. Bartel at 3:35. She testified that the routine practice, which she followed and which was followed by other nurses in the hospital, would have required the withdrawal of the blood promptly after the commencement of the I.V. and prior to the giving of mannitol. The testimony of Leilani Heuer, the lab technician who conducted the blood test, established that she completed her test at 4:30 and that it would have taken her not less than one-half hour to complete the test. While that evidence does not indicate a specific time, it does confirm the probability that the blood was withdrawn between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. The findings on the part of the District Court indicate that it concluded that the blood was drawn at close to 3:30 a.m., when the I.V. was begun. There is certainly substantial evidence to support that conclusion. There is in fact no evidence to the contrary, but only the speculation raised by Mr. Bartel. We conclude that the argument of Mr. Bartel that there was mannitol interference must also fail.
3. Bartel argues that the State's failure to demonstrate that a non-alcoholic solution was used for skin preparation is fatal to the test result's admissibility. Nurse Westphal-Marcus testified that the routine practice is to use Betadine, a non-alcoholic solution, when alcohol testing is anticipated. However, she could not specifically remember the nature of the solution used on Mr. Bartel. She did explain in detail the nature of the I.V. which was started, pointing out that after making a veni-puncture, the needle is withdrawn from the catheter with the tourniquet still on the arm so there is a significant spilling of blood on the floor before the syringe is inserted, at which time the 10 cc.'s of blood are taken out for testing purposes. She concluded that even if alcohol had been used to swab the arm prior to the commencement of the I.V., so much blood was spilled that she did not believe there could have been any contamination. Dr. Mueller, forensic pathologist, testified that he had done studies on the effect of the use of isopropyl alcohol swabs on the measurement of ethyl alcohol. Dr. Mueller testified he had found the only way it would affect the ethyl alcohol result was if the needle was withdrawn through the sponge with the suction still on or, in other words, the doing of something distinctly abnormal or incompetent in withdrawing the blood. He testified that in the ordinary way of preparing an arm for example with alcohol, "isopropyl alcohol simply did not give measurable amounts of alcohol." In addition, he testified that the drug mannitol is not an interfering substance with the method of alcohol testing used in the present case. We, therefore, conclude that a failure to demonstrate that a non-alcoholic solution was used is not fatal to the admissibility of the blood test.
4. Bartel argues that the State failed to show that Bartel's abnormal body chemistries did not interfere with test results. However, the record contains nothing, indicating that body chemistries actually affected test results.
5. Bartel contends that the test results are inadmissible because the State failed to produce the original test machine printout and failed to produce quality control records. Failure to produce the original test printout does not preclude admissibility of test results. See McAlpine, 634 P.2d at 1171-72, 38 St.Rep. at 1584. Heuer testified that Exhibit X was the lab report she prepared by recording test results. Further, she stated she would have repeated th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|