 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Demille10/11/1988
This is an appeal from a bench trial conviction for the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291-4(a)(2) (1985). Defendant Richard Ian DeMille (Defendant) contends that the trial court reversibly erred in admitting the blood test results into evidence because the State failed to show strict compliance with pertinent provisions of Chapter 111 of Title 11 of the Administrative Rules of the State Department of Health. We hold that a sufficient foundation was laid for the admission of the blood test results into evidence. We therefore affirm the conviction.
I.
Defendant was arrested for DUI and transported to the Kaneohe Police Station. After he consented to a blood test, Defendant was taken to the Pawaa Annex of the City and County of Honolulu Health Department (Health Department) for testing.
Emily Chang (Chang), a medical technologist at the Pawaa Annex, administered the blood test. At the trial, Chang testified that she had a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Hawaii, had been a medical technologist with the Health Department for about thirteen years, was certified by the State Department of Health to conduct chemical analysis to determine blood alcohol concentration, had been qualified as an expert in blood serum analysis by Hawaii courts over fifty times, and had been trained by a supervisor of the Health Department in the field of ethanol methodology. Chang also testified as to the procedure she followed
in drawing two vials of blood from Defendant's arm, and testing the blood specimen for alcohol concentration.
Chang used the "direct distillation method" in her analysis of Defendant's blood alcohol concentration. Under this method, a spectrophotometer was utilized as a measuring device. Chang testified that before the test was run she calibrated the spectrophotometer with three reference samples of known ethanol levels and a blank. Additionally, Chang used a homium oxide filter to calibrate the spectrophotometer "to see that the machine was working at the wave-length it was supposed to work at." Transcript at 50. Chang testified that the spectrophotometer was working accurately.
Over Defendant's objection, the trial court admitted into evidence the test results, which indicated that Defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 0.18 per cent, and found him guilty of DUI. Defendant timely appealed.
II.
In State v. Souza, 6 Haw. App. 554, 732 P.2d 253 (1987), a DUI case involving a breath test result, we stated:
n meeting the foundational prerequisites for the admission of the Intoxilyzer test result there must be a showing of strict compliance with those provisions of the Rules which have a direct bearing on the validity and accuracy of the test result.
Id. at 559, 732 P.2d at 257 (footnote omitted).
Relying on Souza, Defendant asserts that there was no showing by the State of strict compliance with § 11-111-5(d)(1) and § 11-111-5 (j)(1) of the Rules. Defendant therefore concludes that the trial court erred in admitting the blood test results in evidence. We disagree.
A.
Section 11-111-5(d) (hereinafter § 5(d)) of the Rules reads in relevant part as follows:
(d) For the purposes of the department's approval, the method of analysis shall be capable of meeting the following performance standards:
(1)
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|