Opinion ID: 1779026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Error in admitting blood alcohol report

Text: ¶ 32. Turner contends that it was error for the trial court to admit into evidence the blood alcohol report which showed that Turner had a blood alcohol level of .23 several hours after the wreck. Turner asserts that the report was more prejudicial than probative. He also asserts that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated because he did not sign a consent form, and therefore there was no consent. ¶ 33. Turner cites to this Court's decision in Wade v. State, 583 So.2d 965, 967 (Miss.1991) to support his position that [w]hen the introduction of evidence prejudices defendant, it constitutes reversible error. This is a misstatement of the law. Reversible error occurs only where the improper introduction of evidence prejudices the defendant. Wade, 583 So.2d at 967 (emphasis added). The question for this Court is whether the blood alcohol report was improperly admitted, i.e., was there consent for the blood to be drawn? The results of the blood test are clearly admissible at trial under Miss.R.Evid. 401, so long as Turner was not subjected to an unreasonable search without his consent. Whitehurst v. State, 540 So.2d 1319, 1322-23 (Miss.1989). ¶ 34. Turner cites no authority whatsoever to support his position that his verbal consent to the drawing of his blood was insufficient. This Court is under no obligation to consider this assignment of error. Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019,1023 (Miss.1988). ¶ 35. The trial court conducted a hearing on Turner's motion to suppress the blood alcohol test. Elizabeth Jordan, Turner's sister, testified that she was present when Turner's blood was drawn for the blood test and that she never heard anyone talk to Turner about consent. Officer Putt testified that he was present with Gwen Judon when Turner gave verbal consent to the blood test. He also testified that Elizabeth Jordan was not in the room when Turner gave consent. The trial court overruled the motion to suppress. At least part of the trial court's ruling was based on Miss.Code Ann. § 63-11-8 (1996) which mandates that the operator of any motor vehicle involved in an accident that results in a death shall be tested for his blood alcohol content, and that those results may be used as evidence in any court without the consent of the person tested. Miss.Code Ann. § 63-11-8(1) & (3) (1996). However, that statute did not become effective until July 2, 1996. The accident and death occurred in this case on July 2,1995. ¶ 36. We find that the trial court in its discretion, determined that Turner had consented to the blood alcohol test. This Court gives deference to that ruling. Moreover, the results of the test were admissible at trial under Rules 401 and 403 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. This Court, in Ashley v. State, 423 So.2d 1311 (Miss.1982), explained this Court's interpretation of search and seizure law as it applies to blood alcohol searches. We first address appellant's Fourth Amendment claims. The United States Supreme Court in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) held that taking blood samples from a defendant who had been lawfully arrested did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. In Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973) the Court held that taking fingernail scrapings from one detained did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights where probable cause for his arrest existed. The Cupp rationale has been extended in some jurisdictions to include the warrantless taking of a suspect's blood for analysis prior to arrest where probable cause existed and the circumstances dictated that the blood should be taken for a test. Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); State v. Campbell, 189 Mont. 107, 615 P.2d 190 (Mont.1980); State v. Oevering, 268 N.W.2d 68 (Minn.1978). We find appellant had not been lawfully arrested when his blood was withdrawn for testing. However, our examination of the facts must not stop here. We must determine whether Officer Santacruz had probable cause to detain appellant and order a blood test after he went to the hospital. The facts in possession of the officer at that time were that Ashley was driving an automobile which had run into the rear end of another automobile which was stopped at a traffic signal, that an occupant of the stopped automobile had been killed in the accident, and in the opinion of the officer appellant was intoxicated. Under these facts the officer could then have arrested appellant on a charge of manslaughter and required appellant to submit to a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. At that time there existed probable cause for arrest and also probable cause to search appellant by requiring him to submit to the withdrawal of blood from his body to be tested. .... The United States Supreme Court recognized in Schmerber, supra, that extraction of blood samples for testing is a highly effective means of determining the degree to which a person is under the influence of alcohol. It also recognized, as this Court did in Jackson v. State, 310 So.2d 898 (Miss.1975), that the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops as the body functions to eliminate alcohol from the system. Information gathered at the accident scene and later at the hospital not only provided probable cause for appellant's arrest, but also indicated that appellant was probably intoxicated; hence, the need for a blood test. Under the facts of this case, we hold that appellant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, and the result of the blood test administered at the direction of Dr. Wiggins was admissible in evidence. We hold that, where the state is justified in requiring a blood test to determine the alcoholic content in a suspect's blood, and such test has in fact been performed, although for diagnostic and not law enforcement purposes, the state is entitled to the benefit of the test results.... Ashley v. State, 423 So.2d 1311, 1313-14 (Miss.1982). In the case sub judice, Officer Putt certainly had probable cause to arrest Turner at the hospital. Under Ashley, he could have taken Turner's blood for testing even without consent. We hold that there was no error in the trial court's denial of Turner's motion to suppress.