### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-03-00337- CR

Bobb y W ay ne Bla c kwel l, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. CR-00- 024, HO NORAB LE JOH N M. DELANEY, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury convicted B obby

Way ne B lackwe ll of driving w hile intox icated, third of fense , and the district cour

t assessed se ntence at forty -five y ea rs i n p ri son. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. §§ 49.04( a ) ( We s t 2 0 0 3 ) &
. 0 9 ( b ) ( We s t Su p p . 2 0 0 4
- 0 5 )
. O n a

p p e a l, B la c kw e ll c h a ll e n g es the admission of blood-test results reve aling that he wa s leg ally intox icated. Se e id . § 49 .0 1( 2) (B ) ( Wes t 2003). He complains that the State failed to pr ove that a qualifie d person dr ew his blood or followe d pr oc e dure s th a t ma de the te st r e su lts a dmi ssi ble thr ou g h an e xce pti on to the he ars ay ru le . We wi ll
a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.2 BACK GR OUND Bla ckwe ll was seriously

injured in a multiple vehicle c ollisi on on October 16, 1999, in Dr ipp ing Spr ing s. Se ve ra l witn e sse s te sti fi e d th a t th e y saw B la c kw e ll d

ri vin g re c kle ssl y

sh or tly befor e the c ollisi on. Specifica lly , these witnesses testified that B lackwe ll was out of control a s he trave led west fr om Austin along a n undivided, four- lane stretch of U.S. Hig hway 290, was driving fa ste r tha n the sp e e d lim it and surr ound ingtr a ff ic , a nd wa s sw e rv inga c ro ss l ane s o f t ra ff ic and int o the paths of onc oming c ars. Ha y s County

Deputy Sheriff J ames Youngtestified that he r esponded to a ca ll reg ardingan out-of- control driver and drove east from Dripping Springs. Youngfirst saw Bla ckwe ll traveling toward him at about eig hty -five miles pe r hour while B lackwe ll was rounding
a cur ve; B lackwe l l strug g led to neg otiate the cur ve and c rossed the double -y ellow ce nter stripe, missing the deputy ’s ca

r by about a f oot. Yo u ng then turned to pursue Bla ckwe ll. He then saw B la c kw e ll sw e rv e int o o nc omi ngtr a ff ic and hit se ve ra l ve hic le s. L a te r e xami natio n o f B la c kw e ll
reve aled that he suffe red f rac tures in his sinuses and pelvis and injuries to his li ver a nd spleen. Othe r witnesses involved in the collision testified that they eac h avoided serious injury , but that at least one of the ir ve hic le s w a s d e c lare d a

tot a l lo ss. Sean Da vis, a Depa

rtment of Public Safety

trooper w ho investigated the collision, testified about his observations at the scene . Davis testified that ther e we re no skid mar ks indicating evasive action by

Bla ckwe ll. He testified that Bla ckwe ll y elled at emerg ency personne l while they
we re fr e e inghim

fr om h is w re c ke d c ar. Th e re wa s a str on g sme ll o f b e e r a

bo ut B la c kw ell. Bla ckwe ll’s car

contained mor e than f

orty cans of beer , many of them empty , althoug h all but one3

of the e mpties appeare d t o h ave been r uptured duringthe collision. Davis testified that, when
remove d from the car , Bla ckwe ll smelled like he had beer on his pe rson and on h i s b re at h. B la c kw e ll h a d to be re str a ine d b e fo re be ingtr ans po rt e d b y he lic op te r t o th e ho sp ita l. D a vis sa id t hat, althoug h some people resist medical treatment and Bla ckwe ll may have be en in shock, B lackwe ll’s
re sis tanc e wa s unu su a l in lig ht of the se ve ri ty of his inj ur ie s, wh ic h in c lud e d a br ok e n p e lvi s. Da

vis
sa id that he be lie ve d that B la c kw e ll wa s d ri vin g wh ile int oxic a te d a nd that he ha d p lann e d to a rr e st Bla ckwe ll, but delay ed in def ere nce to B lackwe ll’s condition and need for tre atment. Davis said he did not offer

Bla ckwe ll a breath test at the scene and did not seek an arr est war rant unti l more than three day s after

the collision. Be n Coop wo o d , t h e t ra u m a s u rge o nwh o t re at ed B lackwe ll, testified about proce dures used in treating the f

rac tures in B lackwe ll’s sinuses and pelvis and the injuries t o h i s liver and spleen. Coopwood testified that hospital personne l tested Blackwe ll’s blood to determine whe ther he wa s ble e din g int e rn a lly and a lso wh e the r h e wa s in toxic a te d; C oo pw oo d e xpla ine d th a t th e te st for intoxi cation helps to dia g nose potential cause s of a patient’s nonresponsivene ss a nd to determine
a cour se of tre atment re g ardingpotential brai n s we l l i ng . These blood- alcohol test re sults were admitted over B lackwe ll’s objection. Coopwood testified that Bla ckwe ll’s blood-alcohol
conce ntration was 0.25 g rams per liter—a ratio more than three times the 0.08 le gal t h reshold for intox ication. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 49.01( 2)(B ). Coopwood admitted that he did not see the blood being draw n. He testified that the s igna ture on the bl ood-test l aboratory repor t of the per son in the “blood collected by ” line wa s “Michelle” —he could not re ad the last name—and testified that h e d i d n o t re m ember a re g istered nur se (RN) or phlebotomist on st aff

by that name. Coopwood4

testified that doctors r outinely rely on standard te sting proc edure s and t he re sults obtained from the m.
DI SCU SSIO N

Bla ckwe ll c omplains that the district c ourt should ha ve excluded his blood-alcohol test results. He contends that proce dures require d when taking blood samples from ar rested pe rsons who ar e unconsc ious or otherwise inc apable of re fusing a blood test should be extended to per sons wh om t he po lic e int e nd

to a rr e st. He a lso c on te nd s th a t a dmi tti ngthe blo od -a lc oh ol t e st r e su lts without any

evidenc e as to the qua lifications o f t he per son drawingthe blood and the pr ocedur es
us e d v iol a te d h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o c on fr on t and c ro ss- e xami ne wi tne sse s a g a inst h im. Bla ckwe ll arg ues that the a dmission of the test results contributed to his conviction.
Restr ictions on p ersons wh o m ay take blood samples

Bla ckwe ll relies on statutory protec tions that limit the persons who may take blood sampl es from arre sted persons at the reque st of a pea ce of fice r. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 72 4. 01 1- .0 17 (We st 1 99 9 & Wes t Su pp . 2 00 4- 05 ). Pe rs on s arr e ste d for offe ns e s a lle g e dly
re su lti ng fr om the ir dr ivi ng wh ile int oxic a te d are de e me d g e ne ra lly to h a ve c on se nte d to su bmi t to the taking of a blood specimen for alcohol-c ontent analy sis. See id. § 724.011(a) (West 1999). An
arr ested pe rson who is unconscious or othe rwise inca pable of ref using to submit a

sample is deeme d not to have withdra

wn t his impl ied conse nt. Id
. § 724.014(a) . But the statute limits the persons who may take samples from a living arr ested person who is inc apable of ref using to submit a sample. Id
. § 724.014(c) . I n those circ umstances, “ [o] nly a phy sician, qualified te chnician [oth er t h an an5

e me rg e nc y

me dic a l tec hn ic ian], ch e mis t, re g ist e re d p ro fe ssi on a l nu rs e , o r l ic e ns e d v oc a tio na l nu rs e may take a blood specimen at the reque st or order of a pe ace office r . . . .” Id . § 724.017(a)
. B la c kw e ll is not en tit le d to the pr ote c tio n of the se statut e s. Th e se statut e s a pp ly to
arr ested pe rsons, se e id . § 724.011(a) , and B lackwe ll had not b ee n ar re s t ed whe n the sample wa s taken. F urther, the limit ations on the medica l personnel who ma y take samples apply

only when the samples ar e take n “at the r equest or or der of a pea ce of

fice r.” Id . § 724.017(a) . These limitations do not apply

when the te sts are c onducted by medical pe rsonnel solely for medi cal purposes. See State v. Hardy , 963 S.W .2d 516, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). There is no e vidence that the samples in this case wer e taken at t he request of a peac e off icer . The only

evidenc e in this case de monstrates that th e blo od

sampl e wa s ta

ke n f ro m B la c kw e ll a

nd the blo od -a lc oh ol t e st p e rf or me d pur su a nt t o standard me dical proc edure s in order to a ssess Bla ckwe ll’s medical condition and to dete rmine the proper course of treatment. The limitations concerningwhich medica l personne l may obtain blood samples from a

rre sted persons inca

pable of withdrawingconsent do not apply here
. Right to confront and cross- exam ine w itnesses

Bla ckwel l co m plains that the lack of evidenc e re g ardingthe qualifications of the pe rs on wh o d re w h is b loo d s a mpl e and

the pr oc e du

re s u se d to ob ta in t

hat bl oo d s a mpl e de pr ive d h im of his c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht to me anin g fu l c on fr on ta tio n a nd c ro ss- e xami natio n o f w itn e sse s a g a ins t him. See U
. S
. C o n s t
. a m e n d
. V I; T e x . C o n s t
. art
. I, § 1 0
. H e c o mp l a i n s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s h e a r s a y, and that the lac k of evide nce r eg ardingthe pe rs o n who took the sample or the proce dures use d undermines the r eliability of t he evidence. He contends that the onl y evidenc e on this issue was the signature on the r ecor ds indicating that “Miche lle” dre w the sample.6 We revie w t he admissi on of evide nce f or an a buse of discr etion. Se e Gr e e n v . S tat e , 93 4 S.W. 2d

92 , 1 01 -0 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Mo ntg om e ry v . S tat e , 8 1 0 S. W. 2 d

3 7 2 , 3 7 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1990). We will not reverse a trial c ourt as l o n g as its ruling wa s within the “zone of
rea sonable disag ree ment.” Gree n , 9 34 S.W. 2d a t 10 2; se e Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 391. The State off

ere d the blood-alc ohol test results pursuant to the business-r ecor ds
e xce pti on to t he he ars ay

ru le , w hic h p ro vid e s a s f oll ow s:
A m e m o r an d

u m , r e p o rt , r e c o r d , o r

d a t a c o mp i l a t i o n , i nan y

f o r m , o f a c t s , e v e n t s, conditions, opinions, or diag noses, made at or nea r the time by , or fr om information tr ans mit te d b y , a

pe rs on wi th k no wl e dg e , if

ke pt in the c ours e of

a re g ula rl y c on du c te d bus ine ss ac tiv ity , an d if it w a s th e re g ula r p ra c tic e of

that bu sin e ss a c tiv ity to ma k e th e me mo r an d

u m, r e p o rt, r e c o r d , o r d a ta c o mp il a ti o n , a ll a s s h own by the testi m o n y o f t h e custodian or other qua lified witness, or by aff idavit that complies with Rule 902(10), unless the sourc e of infor mation or the method or c ircumstance s of prepa ration indicate lack of trustworthiness. ‘B usiness’ as used in this parag raph includes any

and eve ry

kind of regular org anized activity whether conducte d for pr of it o r n ot.
Tex. R. Evi d. 803(6). When admitting the rec ords, the trial court wa s require d to determine w hether the bu sin e ss r e c or ds ha d suf fi c ie nt ind ic ia of re lia

bil ity or tr us tw or thi ne ss as to gua

ra nte e the same protec tion provided by

the constitutional rights of confr ontation and cr oss-examination. See P orter
v . S tat e , 578 S.W .2d 742, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

The blood-a lcohol test results w e r e p a r t o f a g roup of r ecor ds produce d by the hospital pursuant to a subpoe na. The re cords we re a ccompa nied by the af fidavit of the c ustodian of the hospital’s rec ords in which the c ustodian rec ites that he kept the r ec o rd s i n t h e re g ular c ourse of bu sin e ss an d tha t the re c or ds we re ma de in the re g ula r co ur se and sc op e of the ho sp ita l’ s b us ine ss7

at or near the time of the eve nt. See Tex. R. Evi d. 902(10)( b) (model a ffidavit). The surg eon who treated Bla ckwe ll testified that, although he did not conduct or obser ve the blood dra

w, he a nd other doctors routinely

relied on suc h proc ed u re s an d records in treating patients. The sig nature on the blood-test laboratory

repor t of the per son who collec ted the blood and de l i v er ed i t to the hospital la bo rator y re se mbl e s th e sig natur e of the pe rs on wh o s ig ne d o the r r e c or ds pr e pa re d at th e same tim e in t he sp a c e re se rv e d f

or the “ tr a uma RN ” or “ RN .” Th e sig nat ure on th e blo od -t e st r e po rt a lso appea rs to have the initials “RN” afte r the name. Ther e is no evidenc e that an una uthorized or unquali f ie d p e r s o n dr e w th e b lo o d o r th a t th e p e r s o n s w h o dr e w o r te s te d th e b lo o d d id th eir jobs i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding the re cord of the res ul ts of

the te st o f B la c kw e ll’ s b loo d- a lc oh ol l e ve l su ff ic ie ntl y re lia ble to b e a dmi ssi ble under the business-re cord e x ception to the hea rsay rule. In any event, e ven if the a dmission of the blood-alcohol test results wer e error, we conclude t hat i t was not harmful. See Tex. R. App. P . 44.2. Am ple , in de pe nd e nt e vid e nc e of B la c kw e ll’ s in toxi cat ion w a s in tr od uc e d b e y on d th e te st r e su lts
. Severa l witnesses observe d Bla ckwe ll driving with excessive spee d and lack of control. At least one open bee r ca

n was found in the c ar a long w ith forty other c ans. B ased on the aroma of beer
emana ti n g f

r o m B la c kw e ll an d

h is b e h a v io r

a t t h e c o ll is io ns c e n e an d

a t t h e h o s p it a l, th e peac e office r and the surg eon te s t i fi ed that they conclude d befor e the test re sults were a vailable that Bla ckwe ll had been intoxicated while he w as driving
. We c onclude be y ond a re asonable doubt that any err or in the admission of the test re sults did not contribute to B lackwe ll’s conviction.8 CO NC LU SION Ha v i n g co n cluded that the district c ourt did not err by admitting the r esults of Bla ckwe ll’s blood-alcohol test and, a lternatively , that any err or was harmless, we aff irm the district
c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Mar ch 10, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh