Opinion ID: 1649540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to grant buel's motions in limine?

Text: ¶ 10. Through her motions in limine, Buel sought to prohibit the admission of the blood alcohol test results unless and until Sims and Air Liquide had: 1) proven that consumption of alcohol contributed to or caused the accident; and 2) established the proper chain of custody and obtained witness testimony to sponsor the evidence offered. The trial court denied Buel's motion and admitted the blood test results into evidence. ¶ 11. This Court has consistently ruled that [t]he relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused. Martindale v. Wilbanks, 744 So.2d 252, 253 (Miss.1999) (citations omitted). Unless the trial judge's discretion is so abused as to be prejudicial to a party, this Court will not reverse his or her ruling. Id.
¶ 12. Buel argues that as no evidence was offered to show she suffered from any impairment which caused or contributed to the accident, the trial court erred in failing to exclude the blood alcohol test results. Buel relies heavily on our decision in Pope v. McGee, 403 So.2d 1269, 1271 (Miss.1981), where, on retrial, we excluded evidence of two six packs of warm beer and a white powdery substance found in the defendant's vehicle. The patrolman investigating the accident testified that he was unable to detect the smell of alcohol on the defendant's breath, and a blood test showed no alcohol in his blood. Id. As there was no indication that the defendant had been drinking or under the influence of drugs, we directed that the evidence not be admitted on retrial. ¶ 13. Unlike the facts in Pope, there was overwhelming evidence that Buel had been drinking beer on the evening of the collision. Buel admitted to consuming several sixteen ounce beers prior to her collision, and there was testimony that Buel smelled like alcohol and that her speech was slurred. We have previously held that one's own admission of alcoholic consumption in the hours preceding an accident provides a sufficient evidentiary basis to submit the question to the jury. Mills v. Nichols, 467 So.2d 924, 929 (Miss. 1985). As such, we find that Buel's reliance on Pope fails, and that the trial court properly admitted proof of Buel's alcoholic intake.
¶ 14. Buel argues that before her medical records could be admitted at trial, Sims and Air Liquide had the burden of proving chain of custody and providing a sponsoring witness, though Buel does not dispute the authenticity of the records, and made no objection that this was not a proper self-authentication under M.R.E. 902(11). A review of the record reveals that the blood alcohol test at issue was performed at Memorial Hospital in Gulfport, where Buel was transported for treatment following the accident. The test report was maintained by Memorial Hospital as part of Buel's medical records while at the hospital. At trial, Sims and Air Liquide produced a certified copy of Buel's medical records, together with the affidavit of the custodian of those records. We have traditionally deferred chain of custody questions to the trial court and will not disturb those findings absent an abuse of discretion. Typically, we defer to the trial court's determination of whether authorities have maintained the chain of custody. When reviewing the chain of custody, we will not disturb the finding of the trial court unless there has been an abuse of discretion. The test to determine whether there has been a break in the chain of custody is whether there is evidence of probable tampering. Jackson v. Daley, 739 So.2d 1031, 1035 (Miss.1999). ¶ 15. Buel also argues that the trial court should have excluded her medical records because of the failure of Sims and Air Liquide to call a sponsoring witness pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901. Buel contends that such sponsoring witnesses should have included the technician who drew the blood, the Puckett Laboratory representative who performed the test, and the testimony of a witness capable of interpreting the results. In arguing that M.R.E. 901 requires authentication and identification as a condition precedent to admissibility, Buel relies heavily on our decision in Fulton v. City of Starkville, 645 So.2d 910 (Miss.1994). ¶ 16. In Fulton, the defendant challenged the results of a blood alcohol test on the basis that the statute required a chemical test by breath only. Id. at 911. The Court, in finding the argument without merit, noted that the blood alcohol content test was a proper test contemplated by statute. We further stated that in determining the admissibility of these tests, the inquiry should focus on the accuracy, reliability and proper admissibility of evidence. Id. at 914. ¶ 17. Unlike Fulton, with Buel, we are dealing with a civil, not criminal, matter, and there are no statutorily prescribed procedures. Instead, we have a test administered by hospital personnel for medical purposes. Buel's blood test is no different from the results of an x-ray, a myelogram or a myriad of medical tests which are routinely admitted into evidence as part of a party's medical records. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court, and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused, a situation which does not exist here. Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237, 238 (Miss.1990); see also Hentz v. State, 542 So.2d 914, 917 (Miss.1989); Monk v. State, 532 So.2d 592, 599 (Miss.1988). [1] We see no abuse of discretion here.