 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crime Laboratory v. Blenden6/24/1999
file because that information had previously been produced. However, the Crime Lab's failure to produce the initials on the sequence file perpetuated the misrepresentation that Hales was not involved in testing Brandon's blood.
. The trial court also found that there was a violation of the sequestration rule and that the State failed to inform the court of the violation prior to putting the witness on the stand. "The question of whether or not a violation of a sequestration order occurred is a question of fact for the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal where the determination is supported by sufficient credible evidence." Commonwealth v. Stinnett, 514 A.2d 154, 162 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)(citing Commonwealth v. Smith, 346 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1975)). After Howell testified that his opinion relied on the results of tests performed by Hales, upon the State's motion to reopen its case in chief, Hales was called to testify regarding testing Brandon's blood. Subsequently, on July 19, 1996, during a motion hearing, it was brought to the trial court's attention that Hales took the witness stand after having sat through Howell's testimony. Upon inquiry by the trial court, the State admitted that, prior to calling Hales to the stand, they became aware that Hales had sat through Howell's testimony.
. The State argues, however, that any violation of the sequestration rule was non-prejudicial and was cured by the defense's cross-examination of Hales. And, in any event, did not warrant either granting a mistrial, excluding the blood-alcohol evidence in the second trial, or imposing monetary sanctions. This Court has held that the possible remedies for violations of the sequestration rule include:
"prohibiting the witness from testifying, striking his testimony, citing him for contempt, or allowing a "full-bore" cross-examination. Gerrard v. State, 619 So.2d 212, 217 (Miss.1993). It is within the trial Judge's discretion to determine what remedy is appropriate." Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1083 (Miss.1992). Brown v. State, 682 So. 2d 340, 347 (Miss. 1996).
Here the trial court found that the exclusion of Hale as a witness left a void concerning the calibration of the machine and the chain of custody and created constitutional confrontation problems, requiring the exclusion of the blood test results in toto. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence from the retrial.
. The trial court further found that the State Crime Lab failed to follow its Procedures, which required the use of multiple known standards of differing concentrations in analyzing a blood sample. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-19 (1996), authorizes the Crime Lab to approve the methods to be used for analyzing blood-alcohol content. This Court has recognized that an agency's interpretation of its own standards and regulations is controlling, unless such an interpretation is clearly erroneous. Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc. v. Mississippi State Tax Comm'n, 662 So. 2d 1077, 1080-81 (Miss. 1995) (citing Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning v. Sullivan, 763 F.Supp. 178, 184 (S.D. Miss.1991)). See also, United Steelworkers v. Marshall 647 F.2d 1189, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 872, 97 S.Ct. 2150, 2155, 53 L. Ed.2d 48 (1977)); United States v. Scholz, 19 M.J. 837, 842 (N-M.C.M.R. 1984). Here the trial court found that the Crime Lab failed to follow the procedures as set out in its Procedures. This finding was based on the fact that the Crime Lab used a standard of only one concentration level in testing Brandon's blood. During the first trial the following exchange took place on cross-examination:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|