 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Frey10/25/2004
2000) (same). The plain language of section 56-5-2950 demands that the State offer some evidence to establish compliance with this statutory requirement.
The plain language of section 56-5-2950 further requires that we reject the State's suggestion that the mere appearance of Scott Darragh in the emergency room is sufficient, for the statute mandates that the blood sample "must" be obtained by a trained medical professional. One's mere appearance in a hospital wearing generic hospital attire is not evidence of one's medical training. In light of the State's complete failure to satisfy this basic foundational requirement, we are constrained to find the circuit court erred in finding the foundational requirements of section 56-5-2950 had been satisfied.
The State alternatively asserts that, assuming Darragh was not qualified under the statute to collect the blood sample, suppression would not be warranted. Specifically, the State contends Frey was not prejudiced by the failure to comply with the statute. The State bases its argument on the principle that where a statute is silent about the admissibility of evidence, the "exclusion of evidence should be limited to violations of constitutional rights and not to statutory violations, at least where the appellant cannot demonstrate prejudice at trial resulting from the failure to follow statutory procedures." State v. Sheldon, 344 S.C. 340, 343, 543 S.E.2d 585, 586 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting State v. Chandler, 267 S.C. 138, 226 S.E.2d 553 (1976)).
In support of its argument that prejudice has not been established, the State relies upon two supreme court decisions: State v. Chandler, 267 S.C. 138, 226 S.E.2d 553 (1976), and State v. Huntley, 349 S.C. 1, 562 S.E.2d 472 (2002). The present case, however, is critically different from the situations where our courts have found no prejudice arising from statutory violations. The two cases relied upon by the State illustrate this important distinction.*fn1
In State v. Chandler, the defendant claimed error and sought suppression of evidence obtained under a search warrant executed by law enforcement at nighttime although the warrant authorized a search "in the daytime only." 267 S.C. at 142, 226 S.E.2d at 555. The trial court admitted the evidence seized under the warrant. Our supreme court affirmed and understandably had no difficulty in finding no prejudice as a result of the nighttime search. The violation had no impact on the reliability or probative value of the evidence.
The same approach was followed in State v. Huntley. In that case, a defendant charged with DUI sought to suppress his breath test results on the grounds the breathalyzer operator did not strictly comply with the statutory guidelines governing the administration of breath tests. Specifically, the defendant claimed the operator used a 0.10 simulator test solution rather than the prescribed 0.08 solution. 349 S.C. at 3-4, 562 S.E.2d at 473-74. In its analysis, the supreme court focused on whether the failure to comply with the statute affected the reliability of the evidence. The court explicitly found the operator's error did not impact the accuracy of the results-concluding "[t]here is no question the breathalyzer machine was operating properly and its results were reliable." Id. at 6, 562 S.E.2d at 474.
In the present case, unlike Chandler and Huntley, the statutory violation is directly linked to the reliability of the critical evidence-the blood test results. The mandatory requirement imposed by the Legislature is designed to ensure the reliability of the test results. Recent revisions to section 56-5-2950 confirm this view. The statute was amended in 2003 to include the addition of subsection (e),*fn
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|