 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. State10/30/2003
tory and the Commissioner of Public Safety, and that Betty Cooper did not possess a permit issued by the State Crime Laboratory. Jones seeks to have § 63-11-19 used as a rule of evidence, where noncompliance results in exclusion of the evidence.
. The Court of Appeals noted Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237 (Miss. 1990), where we reversed a conviction for DUI because there was no evidence in the record to establish that the intoxilyzer machine had been calibrated within the time period required by § 63-11-19. The Court of Appeals correctly distinguished Johnston because it dealt with accuracy of intoxilyzer machines, and also stated that
we do not read Johnston to say that the result of a chemical analysis of a person's blood inadmissible if it is not done by a permittee of the State Crime Laboratory in accordance with methods approved by the State Crime Laboratory. For sure, such an analysis would not be deemed as valid as one performed by a permittee in accordance with methods approved by the State Crime Laboratory. In such cases, the procedures used in the analysis must pass a test of reasonableness.
Jones v. State, 2003 WL 21005836, at *6 ( 25).
. The Court of Appeals then cited Cutchens v. State, 310 So.2d 273 (Miss. 1975), language from Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-39(2), which was repealed in 1991, and Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed.2d 908 (1966), to find that admission of the evidence in question should be viewed under a reasonableness standard. Finding that the standard was met, the Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of the urinalysis results.
. We conclude that § 63-11-19 is not a rule of evidence and evidence otherwise admissible will not be excluded because of failure to comply with its requirements. Johnston v. State is distinguishable as it dealt with an intoxilyzer, which must be tested at least quarterly by the State Crime Lab under § 63-11-19, and not hospital procedures and personnel, as in this case. This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
. We find that the physician-patient privilege may not be used to exclude incriminating drug analysis results discovered as a result of diagnostic treatment. We find that Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-19 is not a rule of evidence and will not exclude otherwise admissible evidence because of a failure to comply with the statute's requirements. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the circuit court's judgment.
. AFFIRMED.
PITTMAN, C.J., WALLER, COBB, EASLEY AND CARLSON, JJ., CONCUR.
GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|