 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. ADAMS3/2/1983
Defendant Richard Adams was arrested on May 21, 1982, and by complaint dated May 26, 1982, was charged with violating 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312-B (Supp. 1982) for operating in the City of Brewer a motor vehicle while having 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The District Court (Third District, Division of Southern Penobscot) granted the defendant's motion to suppress the results of a blood test administered shortly after the defendant's arrest. The State properly brought an interlocutory appeal to this court, pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 2115-A (1980 and Supp. 1982-83), to challenge the suppression order. Because we conclude that the trial judge incorrectly applied the law, we vacate his order and remand this case for entry of an order denying the defendant's suppression motion.
The trial judge found as fact that Richard Adams was "badly beaten" as was the officer during the arrest, and that he was taken to the station by police cruiser and to St. Joseph's Hospital by ambulance with a very badly swollen eye and some facial cuts in the mouth area. Between his injuries and his apparent intoxication, which the arresting officer observed and which furnished probable cause for his arrest, Adams "was not exactly in good physical and mental condition" upon his arrival at the hospital, so found the District Court judge. Officer James Curtis of the Brewer Police Department read Adams a so-called "implied consent form" at the hospital, information required by 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312(1) (Supp. 1982-83). At the officer's request, a nurse then took a blood sample from Adams; he was agitated and very upset at the time, but caused her no problem. Adams received no medical treatment for his injuries until after the blood sample was drawn. In his findings the District Court judge stated that "the defendant, Richard Adams, did not understand the reading of the consent form, did not know what the nurse was doing, . . . and never knowingly consented to the test." For this reason, the District Court suppressed the results of the blood test performed on the sample drawn from Adams' arm at the hospital.
As a preliminary matter, we disagree with the defendant's assertion that the District Court judge erred in making the implicit or assumed factual finding that the defendant did not refuse to submit to the blood test when the nurse approached him to draw a blood sample. Factual findings of trial courts in criminal matters may be overturned on review only if they are "clearly erroneous." See State v. Maier, 423 A.2d 235, 240 (Me. 1980); State v. Chattley, 390 A.2d 472, 478 (Me. 1978); State v. Walker, 341 A.2d 700, 702 (Me. 1975). Cf., in civil matters, Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978, 981 (Me. 1981); Dehahn v. Innes, 356 A.2d 711, 716-17 (Me. 1976). We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression
The critical issue in this case is, whether a motorist arrested on probable cause for operating under the influence, who due to injury and/or intoxication may not understand that he can choose to take or refuse a blood test and who fails to refuse it by affirmative and unequivocal language or demeanor, is entitled to have the results of his blood test suppressed at trial. We answer in the negative.
Resolution of our problem requires an insight into the historical background of the legislation covering the operation of motor vehicles by persons under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Our Court, in State v. Demerritt, 149 Me. 380, 386, 103 A.2d 106, 110 (1953), had already stated that
the . . . `blood test statute' gives a respondent no
`privilege'. Any person can have a blood test at any time, and
the result can be testified
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|