Opinion ID: 1828294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue of sterility of blood sample vial.

Text: Section 321B.4 also provides, Only new, originally factory wrapped, disposable syringes and needles, kept under strictly sanitary and sterile conditions shall be used for drawing blood. Defendant argues blood test testimony should not have been admitted when it was not established the vial in which his blood was placed was sterile and kept under strictly sanitary and sterile conditions. We have set out in division II the wholly inadequate objection defendant raised during the testimony. Not until taking exceptions to instructions did defendant raise the matter of the vial sterility. The issue was not timely raised. See State v. Shimon, supra; State v. Slater, supra. However, we believe it should be decided to guide future litigation. We think it significant that § 321B.4 makes no reference to sterility of the sample vial. The rule of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius (express mention of one thing implies exclusion of others), is applicable in this case. See In re Estate of Waddington, 201 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa, filed Sept. 19, 1972); North Iowa Steel Company v. Staley, 253 Iowa 355, 112 N.W.2d 364 (1961). By specifically requiring use of sanitary and sterile syringes and needles, the legislature implied by omission the vial need not be sterile. This court has said in interpreting statutes we determine the legislative intent from the language used, the purposes to be served, and the evil sought to be remedied. Jahnke v. Incorporated City of Des Moines, 191 N.W.2d 780 (Iowa 1971). The protective standards in § 321B.4, above quoted, were obviously adopted both to protect the health of the person submitting to the test and to guarantee its accuracy for later judicial proceedings. State v. Wallin, 195 N.W.2d 95 (Iowa 1972); State v. Charlson, 261 Iowa 497, 154 N.W.2d 829 (1967). An unsterile syringe and needle might well infect the accused, but there would be little chance of infection from the vial. We therefore hold the State was not required to show the vial was sanitary and sterile. Lessenhop v. Norton, 261 Iowa 44, 52-53, 153 N.W.2d 107, 112 (1967) enumerates the foundational evidence which must be introduced prior to admission of blood test results. Under Lessenhop, proving the vial was suitable for its function would fall within the requirements that State show (5) that the blood taken was properly preserved or kept or (7) if transported or sent, the method and procedures used therein. In order to lay proper foundation for introduction of blood test results, we hold the State is required to prove the container is uncontaminated by alcohol or other substances which might affect the test. Cf. Janson v. Fulton, 162 N.W.2d 438, 440 (Iowa 1968). In the instant case there was a bare adequacy of evidence the vial was uncontaminated with alcohol or any other test-affecting substance. On this issue we find no reversible error. Affirmed.