Opinion ID: 2588463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: laboratory report and doctor's testimony

Text: DeVries argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the laboratory report of Mannen's drug screen because it was not properly identified and authenticated by the emergency room doctor as the report he saw on October 25, 1999 while treating Mannen. We agree. The UBRA provides an exception for business records to the general hearsay rules. RCW 5.45.020. This court has interpreted the UBRA as applying to medical records and has set forth criteria to ensure the reliability of these records. See State v. Ziegler, 114 Wash.2d 533, 538-40, 789 P.2d 79 (1990). While the UBRA is a statutory exception to hearsay rules, it does not create an exception for the foundational requirements of identification and authentication. 5C KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: EVIDENCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 803.42, at 23 (4th ed.1999). A trial court's decision to admit records under the act is reviewed for a manifest abuse of discretion. Ziegler, 114 Wash.2d at 538, 789 P.2d 79. In this case, exhibit 1 was a laboratory report of the urine test, which the State contended was from the victim, Mannen. The State introduced the report through the emergency room doctor, who testified by phone. Critically, the doctor did not have a copy of the report before him to consult while testifying. He could not say that the report he had seen previously on October 25, 1999, while treating Mannen, was the same one that the prosecution sought to admit. The identification of exhibit 1 was further confused by the prosecutor's repeated reference to the exhibit as a blood test. Mannen did have a blood test but it was only the urine test that was screened for drugs. Because the exhibit was not properly identified and authenticated by a witness, it was a manifest abuse of discretion for the trial court to admit it into evidence. [1] It is possible that upon a proper foundation the doctor could have offered an opinion as to the condition for which he treated his patient. But that is not the question before us. The doctor was never asked for his expert opinion. The trial judge, perhaps frustrated by persistent foundation objections of defense counsel, asked the critical question himself: THE COURT: You can go ahead tell us what the drug screen said. A. It was positive for amphetamines. RP at 90. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting the laboratory report without proper foundation. [2]