Opinion ID: 2323439
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: admission of the blood-alcohol test

Text: The defendant contends that the results of her blood test performed at Rhode Island Hospital should not have been allowed to be introduced into evidence because that information is protected by G.L. 1956 (1976 Reenactment) chapter 37.3 of title 5, as amended by P.L. 1978, ch. 297, § 1, the Confidentiality of Health Care Information Act (the act). The act provides generally that a patient's confidential health care information cannot be released without the patient's written consent, on a form meeting the requirements specified in the act, unless otherwise authorized by the act or by law. The defendant's contention rests on the fact that the consent form she signed did not meet the exact requirements of the form required for consent under the act. [3] She argues that her consenting to have the information released to the Cranston police department for purposes of investigation and prosecution was therefore invalid. The confidentiality act § 5-37.3-4(a) provides in part: Except as provided in subsection (b) or as otherwise specifically provided by the law, a patient's confidential health care information shall not be released or transferred without the written consent of such patient or his authorized representative, on a consent form meeting the requirements of subsection (d) of this section   . Thus, there are two exceptions under which a patient's confidential information may be released or transferred without the patient's consent: under an exception provided in § 5-37.3-4(b) or where otherwise specifically provided by law. Here, the transfer of defendant's blood-test results to the Cranston police falls under the second exception. The Legislature had already explicitly provided, in § 31-27-2, for the admissibility of blood-alcohol-content information in driving-under-the-influence cases. [4] It was clearly the Legislature's intent to have the § 31-27-2 consent requirement apply to the introduction of blood-alcohol-content evidence in cases involving driving under the influence, whether that evidence be derived from blood, breath, or urine samples. It is inconsistent to allow one type of consent to apply to removal of breath or urine samples by police technicians and to require a different, revocable consent to apply to blood samples taken by a health-care technician. All three types of sample removals constitute the same kind of search-and-seizure activity under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under article I, section 6, of the Rhode Island Constitution. [5] This is true whether the removal is of breath at the police station or of blood at the hospital. See, e.g., Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1834, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 918 (1966); State v. Berker, 120 R.I. 849, 856-57, 391 A.2d 107, 111-12 (1978). We assume the Legislature intended statutes relating to the same subject be construed together to be consistent and to effectuate the policy of the law. Rhode Island State Police Lodge No. 25 v. State, 485 A.2d 1245, 1247 (R.I. 1984). Statutes in pari materia are to be considered harmoniously by this court. Id. Although § 31-27-1, under which defendant was convicted, does not explicitly require that the defendant consent to the taking of a blood test before that test may be introduced as evidence in a criminal prosecution, the Legislature must have intended it to include the consent safeguards explicitly provided in § 31-27-2. Both statutes concern the same subject matter, namely driving in a manner so as to threaten public safety. Furthermore, in addition to the already-enacted §§ 31-27-1 and 31-27-2, the Legislature subsequently created § 31-27-2.2, Driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, resulting in death. The consent safeguards in § 31-27-2.2 are also not explicitly in its text, yet the Legislature would not have enacted two separate driving-under-the-influence sections, intending that the consent safeguards apply only to one. It follows that if a mechanical application of a statutory definition produces an absurd result or defeats legislative intent, this court will look beyond mere semantics and give effect to the purpose of the act. State v. Delaurier, 488 A.2d 688, 694 (R.I. 1985). Thus ascertaining the intent of the Legislature, we are duty bound to give effect to that intent. Id. at 693. As defendant concedes, the trial court found that her consent was voluntary as a matter of fact. The court based this finding, in part, on the testimony of Officer Brooks, who was at the scene of the collision and followed defendant to the hospital. Officer Brooks testified that after having read defendant her Miranda rights twice, after having read her the chemical-test-rights sheet twice, and after having advised defendant of her option to refuse the blood test, defendant signed the consent form voluntarily. She appeared to him to be awake, coherent, and capable of understanding everything he had told her. The trial court also found defendant's signature on the consent form to be steady. That the trial court chose to base its finding on physical evidence and on the testimony of Officer Brooks rather than on defendant's testimony claiming that because of her injuries she was in no condition to consent voluntarily is not clearly erroneous. The court's findings are supported by the record. Findings of fact underlying the issue of voluntariness will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. State v. Lemon, 478 A.2d 175, 177 (R.I. 1984). For purposes of this case, suffice it to say that defendant's signing of the Cranston police department consent form more than adequately complied with the consent requirement in § 31-27-2. And as this court has already decided, proof of intoxication is certainly relevant evidence for a jury to consider in driving-to-endanger, death-resulting trials. [6] State v. Northup, 486 A.2d 589, 594-95 (R.I. 1985) (citing State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379, 387, 285 A.2d 783, 787 (1972)). Lastly, defendant's reliance on State v. Boss, 490 A.2d 34 (R.I. 1985), for the proposition that blood-test results performed at a hospital in connection with a drunk-driving accident require consent prescribed by § 5-37.3-4(d) of the confidentiality act before they may be released is unfounded. In Boss we merely held that under § 5-37.3-6(a)(2)(A) the defendant waived his privilege not to have his blood-test results subject to compulsory process when he introduced his physical or mental condition into evidence. 490 A.2d at 36. No such issue is presented here. The defendant's other contentions as to this issue are without merit.