 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Schleifer2/19/2004
that "[e]vidence obtained through a preliminary screening of a person's breath in order to estimate the alcohol concentration of a person at the scene of a stop or other initial encounter between a law enforcement officer and the person shall be admissible in any proceedings to determine whether probable cause existed to believe that a violation of this Code has occurred." [FN24] The trial court's decision to exclude the hospital blood results was not premised on the defendant's contention that those blood test results were not communicated to the police before the police decided to draw blood. Rather, the trial court excluded this evidence because the State did not establish through expert testimony what type of swab was used to draw the hospital blood. (A165) The State argues that in excluding the evidence of the hospital blood, the trial court "departed from established law to reach an unjust result." [FN25] According to the State, the hospital blood results were communicated to police and were considered in conjunction with the balance of the totality of circumstances in determining that it was probable that the defendant had been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Delaware law.
FN24. 21 Del. C. 4177(g)(1) (emphasis added).
FN25. State's Op. Br. at 10.
"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude otherwise legal evidence is reviewed [by an appellate court] for an abuse of discretion." [FN26] "To constitute reversible error, there must be a clear abuse of discretion." [FN27] "An abuse of discretion occurs when 'a court has ... exceeded the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances, [or] ... so ignored recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice." [FN28] After a thorough review of the record, this Court finds that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the hospital blood evidence.
FN26. Kiser v. State, 769 A.2d 736, 739 (Del.2001) (citations omitted).
FN27. Id.
FN28. Lilly v. State, 649 A.2d 1055, 1059 (Del.1994) (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Adams, 541 A.2d 567, 570 (Del.1988).
It is important to note for purposes of this appeal that the articulated basis for the defense objection to the hospital blood results was not the reason the trial court decided to exclude this evidence. Thus, the trial court excluded this evidence on a ground not even raised by defense counsel. According to the State, when the defendant objected to the hospital blood, his basis was that the hospital blood reading was not known by the police before they drew the blood. Although the defendant failed to specify which Rule of Evidence he was relying upon when lodging his objection, the Court can only conclude from defense counsel's comments that it was Delaware Rule of Evidence 401, relevance. After carefully reviewing the record, this Court notes that there is ample evidence in the record to show that the hospital blood reading was communicated to the police before they decided to draw blood and therefore the hospital blood alcohol reading is relevant. Moreover, because the police testified that the hospital blood reading was one of the factors they considered in determining whether they had probable cause to believe the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, the reading is highly probative. But more important, the exclusion of the hospital blood alcohol reading because of the State's failure to prove an isopropyl alcohol swab was used was an abuse of discretion in light of Dr. Murphy's clear and unrebutted expert medical testimony that the hospital blood alcohol test only detects ethyl alcohol, not isopropyl alcohol. Based on Dr. Murphy's unrebutted, uncontradicted expert medical testimony concerning the inabili
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|