 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lynch11/2/2001
Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Glenn Dill III, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
[ ] Rodney L. Lynch appealed from the trial court's judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving under the influence . We reverse and remand for a new trial.
[ ] On June 13, 2000, Rodney Lynch was stopped in his vehicle by Highway Patrol Officer Joseph Brian Knight. Knight observed Lynch had been drinking and conducted field sobriety tests. Knight arrested Lynch and transported him to UniMed Hospital in Minot for a blood test.
[ ] At UniMed, Knight and Lynch were met by Debra Swearson, a medical lab technician. Swearson had a blood kit with her. Knight broke the seal of the blood kit and testified to the contents. Swearson drew a blood sample from Lynch and completed Form 104, indicating the steps outlined by the state toxicologist had been followed and also indicating she was a medical lab technician. Knight then sent the sample to the state toxicologist for analysis.
[ ] At Lynch's trial, the State offered the blood test results into evidence. Lynch objected based on lack of foundation, asserting only " on-compliance of 39-20-02." The trial court overruled the objection. The jury found Lynch guilty of driving under the influence . Lynch appealed.
[ ] Lynch argues the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in admitting the blood test results into evidence without proper foundation. The primary issue in this case is whether the 1999 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 creates an additional statutory foundation requirement for the admission of blood tests.
[ ] Lynch claims N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 adds an additional requirement that the State must produce the state toxicologist's list of approved designations at trial in order to establish the proper foundation for admission of the blood test results. Because the State failed to introduce the list at trial showing Swearson was medically qualified to draw blood, Lynch asserts the proper foundation was not met and the blood test results should not have been admitted. We agree.
[ ] Interpretation of a statute is a question of law fully reviewable by this Court. State v. Schlotman, 1998 ND 39, 10, 575 N.W.2d 208. When interpreting a statute to determine its intent, we must look at the language itself and give it its plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. State v. Shafer-Imhoff, 2001 ND 146, 49, 632 N.W.2d 825. When the meaning of the statute is clear on its face, there is no room for construction. Erdmann v. Rants, 442 N.W.2d 441, 443 (N.D. 1989).
[ ] Before 1999, N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 stated, in part, "Only a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, or registered nurse acting at the request of a law enforcement officer may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol, drug, or combination thereof, content therein." In 1999, the Legislative Assembly passed S.B. 2345, which amended N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 to provide:
Only an individual medically qualified to draw blood, acting at the request of a law enforcement officer, may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol, drug, or combination thereof, content therein. The state toxicologist shall determine the qualifications or credentials for being medically qualified to draw blood, and shall issue a list of approved designations including medical doctor and registered nurse. 1999 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 358.
[ ] As originally introduced, S.B. 2345 provided, " nly an individual medically qualified to draw blood, including a physician, qualified technician, chemist, or register
Page 1 2 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|