 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. McClain6/13/2005
053-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22532500, at *14 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Nov. 7, 2003), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2004). Thus, we conclude that the trial court properly found that the appellant's right to privacy was not violated by the State's issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for the appellant's medical records.
The appellant also contends that the State did not properly comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-17-123 (2003) in drafting the subpoena for his medical records. However, "the [appellant] had no standing to challenge either the validity of the subpoena or the authority of the District Attorney to issue it. The person [or entity] to whom the subpoena was directed was the only party having standing to contest the validity of the subpoena." State v. Fears, 659 S.W.2d 370, 376 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983); see also Hart, No. E2003-00053-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22532500, at *14. In the instant case, the trial court properly found that the appellant did not have standing to challenge the issuance of the subpoena.
Finally, the appellant complains that the issuance of the subpoena "offends the notions of fundamental fairness and substantial justice in that those who are seriously injured in automobile accidents are afforded less protection than those who are not injured." However, the appellant has failed to cite to any authority for this proposition. Accordingly, we are constrained to find this issue waived on appeal. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b); Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7).
III. Conclusion
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|