 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Parson6/17/2004
oth Estep v. Commonwealth , Ky., 957 S.W .2d 191, 193-94 (1997), and Bush v. Commonwealth , Ky., 839 S .W.2d 550, 555 (1992). In State v. McClain, 525 So .2d 420 (Fla . 1988), the Supreme Court of Florida held that even a trace amount of cocaine in the system of a person charged with vehicular homicide would have some relevance, id . at 421 ; and agreed with the conclusion of a district court of appeals in State v. Weitz, 500 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla . Dist. Ct. App . 1986), that such evidence is not inadmissible simply because a toxicologist cannot estimate the degree of impairment caused by its presence . McClain , supra, at 423. Nevertheless, McClain held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in suppressing the evidence under Fla . Stat . Anna § 90 .403, Florida's equivalent of KRE 403 . Id. at 422 .
Here, the trial court admitted the evidence . Like the court in McClain, we believe that evidence that a person charged with vehicular homicide had intoxicating drugs in his system when the homicide occurred is relevant to the issue of wantonness even without additional evidence of the degree of impairment caused by its presence . KRE 402 .
An item of evidence, being but a single link in the chain of proof, need not prove conclusively the proposition for which it is offered . It need not even make that proposition appear more probable than not. . . . It is enough if the item could reasonably show that a fact is slightly more probable than it would appear without that evidence . Even after the probative force of the evidence is spent, the proposition for which it is offered still can seem quite improbable .
Robert G . Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 2 .05 , at 80 (4th ed ., LEXIS 2003) (quoting Edward W . Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 542-43 (3d ed. 1984)) . The evidence was thus admissible unless its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. KRE 403. This is an issue committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. English, Ky., 993 S.W .2d 941, 945 (1999). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence .
III. CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
Christine Kerr testified that she collected the samples of Appellant's blood and urine in the emergency room at University Hospital on the night in question, that she handed the samples to a medical technician who labeled the samples with Appellant's name and handed them to another medical technician for delivery to the hospital laboratory, located down the hall from the emergency room. Kummer testified that the samples were delivered to her, that they were labeled with Appellant's name, and that she tested the blood sample for the presence of alcohol and the urine sample for the presence of various drugs, including cocaine and marijuana . Appellant claims that he Commonwealth failed to prove the chain of custody because it did not produce the testimony of either the person who labeled the samples or the person who delivered them to the laboratory. We disagree .
t is unnecessary to establish a perfect chain of custody or to eliminate all possibility of tampering or misidentification, so long as there is persuasive evidence that the reasonable probability is that the evidence has not been altered in any material respect .
Rabovsky v. Commonwealth , Ky., 973 S.W.2d 6, 8 (1998) (quotation omitted). See also Love v. Commonwealth , Ky., 55 S.W .3d 816, 821 (2001). The evidence offered by Kerr and Kummer proved a reasonable probability that the blood and urine samples delivered to and tested by Kummer were the samples collected from Appellant, and that the samples had not been altered in any material
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|