Opinion ID: 1625379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: evidence of a fair administration of the blood test

Text: McNamara makes several assertions regarding the sufficiency and validity of the evidence introduced by the hearing officer to prove the results and fair administration of the blood test. First, McNamara argues that several of the exhibits introduced were not original documents or properly certified copies, and therefore should not have been admitted or considered by the hearing officer. We will begin with McNamara's contention that the test results should have been excluded from the evidence because the operational checklist [1] was not certified by the clerk of the district court. We answer this argument by referring McNamara to State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d 317 (N.D.1988). Justice Levine, speaking for this Court, offered a complete and thorough explanation of the admissibility of blood test results. In Schwalk, it was reiterated that Section 39-20-07, N.D.C.C., [2] governs the admissibility of chemical test results in both criminal and civil actions. Id. at 321. Further, we held that, in accordance with 39-20-07(5), test results cannot be admitted unless a fair administration of the test is proved. Id. at 322. We then turned our attention to Form 104, drafted by the State Toxicologist, and used when blood samples are drawn for testing. Form 104 sets forth the checklist which contains two components. The first ensures that the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test are not affected by improper collection or preservation of the blood sample. State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d at 322. The second component provides an evidentiary shortcut for establishing chain of custody. Id. The directions for the collection and submission of blood samples, or the checklist, provide: 1. Use a sterile, dry, clean syringe and needle, and non-alcoholic, non-volatile, skin disinfectant. 2. Remove stopper from vial before filling. These vials do not have a vacuum. 3. If possible place 10 ml of whole blood or other fluid specimen into the vial and replace the stopper. 4. Invert the vial several times to mix the chemical and prevent clotting. 5. Fill in name of subject, date, time and your name or initials on the label. Place it over the top and down the sides of the vial. 6. Fill in the top part of this form and place it and the sealed vial in the mailing container. 7. Place cotton or tissue paper on top of the vial. Replace the metal screw cap. 8. Affix the mailing container seal by placing it over the metal cap and down the cardboard sides. 9. Affix the return address label around the mailing container over the ends of the seal. Also contained on Form 104 is a section to be filled in by the nurse or medical technician drawing the blood. This individual must certify that the seal was intact, that the syringe was sterile, dry, and clean, and that a nonalcoholic, nonvolatile skin disinfectant was used. This is basically the first of the nine steps on the checklist. In Schwalk we noted, however, that there is not an area on Form 104 where the officer or medical personnel can certify that the other eight steps were complied with. This deficiency has been noted before in State v. Reil, 409 N.W.2d 99, 103 n. 4 (N.D.1987). In Schwalk, we concluded that [a]bsent such a written certification that all of the State Toxicologist's directives for sample collection have been followed, Form 104 does not on its face establish fair administration of the test, and the State must therefore do so by other evidence. 430 N.W.2d at 323. Thus, even if the checklist on Form 104 had been a certified copy from the district court clerk, under Schwalk, the DOT still would have been compelled to produce other evidence of compliance with the State Toxicologist's approved methods. Relying on a certified checklist alone would not have been sufficient. McNamara's argument here is misplaced. We find that the test results were properly admitted because other evidence was offered by the DOT to prove fair administration of the blood test. Nelson testified that each and every one of the nine steps on the checklist was followed. Nelson's testimony provided the necessary proof needed to show that the approved methods for conducting the blood test were scrupulously met. Id. We have acknowledged numerous times that such testimony, if complete, satisfies the fair administration requirement, allowing test results into evidence. See Schwind v. Director, 462 N.W.2d 147, 151-52 (N.D.1990); State v. Sivesind, 439 N.W.2d 530, 533 (N.D.1989); Salter v. Hjelle, 415 N.W.2d 801, 803 (N.D.1987); Brandt v. North Dakota State Highway Comm'r, 409 N.W.2d 645, 647 (N.D.1987). McNamara argues that Nelson's testimony failed to prove compliance with the checklist because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the vial containing McNamara's blood was inverted, as required by the checklist. We find no merit in this argument. McNamara contends that Nelson's testimony indicates that he only inverted the vial one time, and therefore he did not comply with instruction # 4 on the checklist, which states: Invert the vial several times to mix the chemical and prevent clotting. Nelson testified two times about inversion of the vial. First, in response to the hearing officer's question, he stated: Prior to the label, the inversion. Mixed the white powder with [the blood] so it doesn't coagulate. The second time, an exchange between Nelson and McNamara's attorney disclosed the following: Q. How did you invert the vial when you mixed the coagulant with the blood? A. Just up and down. Q. You'll have to describe it. A. You don't shake it, you just take and tip it back and forth until the powder solution is dissolved. Q. Is that what you did in this case? A. Yes. Q. You didn't shake it then? A. No. This testimony clearly indicates to us that Nelson did not shake the vial to mix the blood with the coagulant, but did, as the instructions direct, invert the vial back and forth until the two substances mixed. This does not prove to us that he only inverted the vial once. He simply did not shake, in a more vigorous manner, the vial. Instead, he more gently tipped it back and forth. We find absolutely no evidence that he only inverted the vial once, and are surprised by McNamara's unsupported assertion on this point. McNamara also argues that the blood tests should have been excluded from evidence because the nurse used Acu-Dyne as a skin disinfectant, and there is no proof that such a disinfectant is nonalcoholic and nonvolatile, as the instructions on the checklist require. Again, we find such an assertion completely meritless and unsupported. Exhibit 9B in the record is a copy of a certified copy of a memorandum from the State Toxicologist's Office stating that Acu-Dyne is a nonalcoholic, nonvolatile skin disinfectant. The memorandum informs emergency room supervisors that Acu-Dyne should be used for cleansing skin prior to withdrawing blood from a DUI suspect. This memorandum is in compliance with the statute discussed immediately below, was properly admitted into evidence, and is proof that Acu-Dyne, the substance used to cleanse McNamara's skin on the night in question, is a nonalcoholic, nonvolatile skin disinfectant. As for the certification of the rest of the exhibits, we must remind McNamara that the provision under which his DOT hearing was conducted, Section 39-20-05(2), N.D.C.C., and another subsection in the same statute, 39-20-05(4), which is wholly devoted to the introduction of the regularly kept records of the DOT, both allow for the introduction of a copy of a certified copy in certain instances. The remaining exhibits in the record from the administrative hearing relating to the validity of the blood test are either certified copies or copies of certified copies, and are in compliance with the above referenced statute. Therefore, such exhibits were properly admitted and considered by the hearing officer.