Court Opinion

ID: 9864797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:12:09.08304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:00.206313
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hilliard
dissenting.
The consequences to the veteran police officer involved, immediate and to continue, are so serious, that, the obvious weakness of the evidence against him considered— resolved in his favor by the trial court — I think the severe judgment to be imposed by our direction constitutes rare injustice. The court cites State v. Cram (Ore.), 160 P. (2d) 283, and Hanlon v. Woodhouse, 113 Colo. 504, 160 P. (2d) 998, in support of the doctrine that blood alcohol tests are competent evidence on the question of alleged drunkenness. That, I submit, this inquiry considered, is not the controlling question. What the trial court found, and the finding was based on undisputed evidence, was that for many years the officer had suffered from epileptic affliction of the *431grand mal type, and Ms physical collapse while on duty well might be attributed to a sudden attack of that dread disease. The objection to the blood alcohol tests was, that, from the time the blood was taken from the officer until it was examined, integrity of identity of the sample did not attend. Of a verity, lack of care in that regard clearly appears, which, as I think, operated to make it incompetent.
Bearing in mind that the evident inherent weakness of the “alcoholic test” testimony, and noting the statement in the court opinion that “there was ‘no liquor’ on Farrar’s breath, either at the time he was picked up * * * or at the time the blood was alleged to have been taken from him at the Denver General Hospital,” I think the .trial court was warranted in resolving the doubt in favor of the officer. Indeed, as my study convinces, proof of intoxication, which was the charge, failed altogether. By our determination, running counter to the judgment below, a police officer, no longer young, of extended satisfactory service, not only is to suffer present separation from a' livelihood earned in prosaic police duty, but retirement benefits that would make for his physical comfort through the years of nonearning ability, almost at hand, will be lost to him.
While I, no less than the trial judge will be, as he proceeds on our mandate, am unable to prevent what I conceive to be an undeserved visitation upon an humble and unsung public servant, still, as properly I may, I voice my approval of the sound and humane judgment of the learned trial jurist.