 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Decker11/25/1991
n under this standard, we still find that "D. Hartman," the person who drew the appellant's blood, was demonstrably qualified to do so.
Further, we believe the legislature intended to provide a safe, sanitary and controlled method of obtaining blood samples. Historical statutory revisions indicate a desire to protect citizens from being subjected to blood drawn from, for instance, a police officer in the filed without proper implements or sterilization techniques.
There is substantial evidence to support the fact that there was both a nurse and doctor present at the hospital, the officer properly requested the blood sample, it was properly taken and its results indicated a criminal level of alcohol. We hold that the nurse was qualified to take the blood sample and, therefore, the testimony of the forensic scientist was properly admitted into evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's admission of the testimony of the forensic scientist and uphold the conviction of Beth Decker.
Affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE and JUSTICES MCDONOUGH and WEBER concur.
JUSTICE TRIEWEILER, dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion of the majority. The requirement that a person drawing blood possess certain qualifications before that blood can reliably be used as evidence of a motorist's intoxication is not an inconsequential requirement.
The procedures that must necessarily be followed to assure that blood is a reliable indicator of a person's blood alcohol content are technical and demanding. This is evident from previous rules established by the Department of Justice and from our prior case law.
In 1978, the Department of Justice enacted § 23.3.931, ARM, which set forth the following specific requirements for the withdrawal of blood:
"(1) Blood samples may be collected from living individuals only by persons authorized by law, upon written request of a peace officer. The skin at the area of puncture must be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected with an aqueous solution of non-volatile antiseptic. Alcohol of phenolic solutions may not be used as a skin antiseptic.
"(3) At least five milliliters of blood should be collected for analysis.
"(4) The blood sample must be deposited into a clean dry container, containing a solid anti-coagulant and preservative. The container should then be capped or stoppered and sealed in a mailing container with at least the following information:
"(a) Name of suspect;
"(b) Date, time and site . . . of collection; and
"(c) Name or initials of persons collecting and/or sealing sample.
"(5) Sodium fluoride or its equivalent must be used as a preservative. Sodium citrate or potassium ox late or equivalent must be used as an anti-coagulant. If no additive or additives other than those listed above are used, a comment so stating should accompany the sample. If other additives are employed, the name of the additive and its quantity should be listed.
"(6) When possible, the officer requesting blood sampling shall observe sample collection so that he or she may attest to the sample's authenticity. The officer should then initial or mark the sample seal for further identification."
The purpose of these procedural requirements is to assure the reliability of blood drawn for the purpose of proving a person's intoxication. In State v. McDonald (1985), 215 Mont. 340, 697 P.2d 1328, we considered the procedure, as well as the qualifications of the person withdrawing the blood, to be so important that we reversed that defendant's conviction where
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|