 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baber v. State8/31/2000
Defense Lawyers cites to only one state with a directly contrary view-Mississippi. See Kettle v. State, 641 So.2d 746 (Miss. 1994). In Kettle, the Mississippi Supreme Court expressed its view thusly:
An evidentiary rule can rise no higher in meeting constitutional standards than an evidentiary statute. While it is true that a custodian under the rule could introduce the records in his care and custody, he cannot satisfy the right to confront witnesses when properly invoked:
The subdivision only gives authenticity to the certificate being used as substantive evidence of the facts stated therein. To be used as the evidence of these facts without the accompanying testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, constitutional requirements must be met. This means there must be a pre-trial agreement by the defendant with the prosecuting attorney consenting to such and waiving the right to confront and cross-examine that witness. Id. at 749-50 (quoting Barnette v. State, 481 So. 2d 788, 791-92 (Miss. 1985)).
The Kettle court relied, in part, on United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1977). The court's reliance on Oates, however, is misplaced because there the Second Circuit held that a drug test performed by law enforcement officials could not be admitted in a criminal trial as a public record since the report was made pursuant to an investigation against the accused. See id. at 84 (relying on Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which prohibited admission of public records regarding "factual findings resulting from investigations made pursuant to authority granted by law"). In contrast, the alcohol test result being admitted in the instant case was performed by a hospital, which did not have an interest in the outcome of the future criminal case lodged against the defendant. Thus, we disagree with Kettle to the extent it is contrary to the majority view and, to the extent it relies on Oates, we find it distinguishable from the instant case.
Finally, petitioner argues that Love should not be applied in criminal cases based on State v. Strong, 504 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1987), wherein we held that "the state or the defendant may have . . . blood test evidence admitted [in a criminal case pursuant to] establishing the traditional predicates for admissibility, including test reliability, the technician's qualifications, and the test results' meaning." Id. at 760. We find that petitioner's reliance on Strong is unavailing because it preceded our decision in Love; therefore, Love is controlling in the instant case.
Based on federal and state precedent, this Court holds that a hospital record of a blood test made for medical purposes, which is maintained by the hospital as a medical or business record, may be admitted in criminal cases pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule. We emphasize, however, that defendants must be given a full and fair opportunity to contest the trustworthiness of such records before they are submitted into evidence. Thus, the certified question is answered in the affirmative and the decision below is approved.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and HARDING, ANSTEAD and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur in result only.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|