 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Anger9/30/2004
re and a fire hydrant. Officer Nakooka testified that Anger stated that he had sustained no injuries as a result of the accident. Officer Nakooka notified emergency medical technicians and the fire department that they were needed to remove Anger from the vehicle. Following his extrication, Anger was transported to Maui Memorial Hospital. Officer Nakooka then requested that central **634 *427 police dispatch send another police officer to the hospital to obtain a blood sample from Anger.
MPD Officer Rockwell Silva was dispatched to Maui Memorial Hospital to arrange for the extraction of a blood sample from Anger. Anger told Officer Silva that he was not injured, so Officer Silva awaited the diagnosis of a physician in order to determine whether Anger had in fact sustained an injury. Officer Silva noted that Anger exhibited red, watery eyes, and the odor of liquor emanated from his breath.
At the suppression hearing, Officer Silva testified that he believed that, pursuant to HRS § 291-4, he had the authority to draw blood for evidence of blood alcohol content if Anger had been injured in the motor vehicle accident, even over Anger's objections. [FN9] Officer Silva further testified that after a doctor told him that Anger had been injured, Officer Silva informed Anger that his blood would be drawn to determine blood alcohol content. Officer Silva could not recall the name of the physician who allegedly stated that Anger had been injured. The following colloquy ensued:
FN9. Actually, HRS § 291-4, see supra note 2, was the statute defining the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Officer Silva was likely referring to the mandatory testing provision contained within HRS § 286-163(c), see supra note 4, which authorizes police to recover a sample of blood from the driver of a vehicle involved in a collision that results in injury or death.
[Officer Silva]: ... I don't recall who was the doctor on duty, but he did give me a diagnos[is] [that Anger] did sustain injuries.
[Deputy Public Defender (DPD) ]: Your Honor, I'll object to that. That's calling for hearsay.
[Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) ]: Your Honor, that ... doesn't go to the truth of the matter. Instead, it goes to the officer's state of mind ....
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. Go ahead.
....
[DPA]: So [Anger] had the odor of liquor on his breath and the injury.
[Officer Silva]: Correct.
[DPA]: Okay. And that's when you ordered the blood draw.
[Officer Silva]: Yes.
[DPA]: Okay.
[DPD]: Your Honor, I'll object to that. There's a question of injury and ... Mr. Silva is ... explaining that he got it from the doctor. So that clearly calls for hearsay.
[DPA]: Objection, Your Honor. [The DPD is] arguing facts not in evidence at this point.
THE COURT: I'll allow you to question him further in this area, [DPD], when you cross-examine the officer.
(Emphases added.) Anger refused the blood test and stated that he would only submit to one under protest. A forcible extraction, performed by a nurse, was undertaken to draw a blood sample from Anger. Anger was not under arrest at the time of the extraction, nor was he placed under arrest at any point that night.
During the DPA's redirect examination of Officer Silva, the DPD, the DPA, and the district court discussed the testimony pertaining to whether Anger had been injured:
[DPD]: Your Honor, I would just like to renew my objection in regards to the hearsay of whether or not there was injury. That obviously goes to the truth of the matter asserted ... in terms of the applicable statutes that were cited in the motion. The question of whether or not there was injury is highly relevant and essential to this motion.
THE COURT: Okay. (Inaudible)
[DPD]: (Inaudible) the S
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|