Court Opinion

ID: 9774134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:09:38.729693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:02.665620
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
*545There is but one point of error submitted by appellant in his brief, which is that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of Dr. Morton F. Mason as to the result of an analysis of a blood sample taken from the defendant shortly after his arrest.
Prior to Dr. Mason’s appearance as a witness, police officer A. L. Curtis, who investigated the accident in which the car driven by appellant was involved, testified that he observed appellant at the scene, smelled his breath, noticed that his speech was slurred, that he was unable to walk straight and required help to prevent falling in the street; that he called an ambulance and had appellant carried to Parkland Hospital. He ex-' pressed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated and testified “I thought he was, but I wanted to be sure that he wasn’t injured.”
Witness Curtis then testified, without objection being offered, that he went to the hospital and was present when a doctor took “a blood test,” after cleaning appellant’s arm with soap; that he sealed the blood specimen, labeled the container, and placed it in the ice box, in the usual place.
Thereafter, during the trial, Dr. Mason was called by the state as a witness, and after showing his qualifications and experience, testified that the blood in question was analyzed under his supervision. He was then asked “What does your analysis show the blood-alcohol concentration of James Emmet Trammell to be?”
To this question appellant objected, among other reasons, because it had not been shown that appellant consented to the taking of his blood or that the blood was taken for the purpose of treatment.
The witness was permitted to answer the question and stated that the alcohol concentration in the blood sample was 0.328 per cent. He further testified that no authority would disagree that such concentration of alcohol showed definite intoxication of the person from whom the blood was taken.
Appellant thereafter testified, denied that he was intoxicated, and said that he was struck by the driver of the car with which he collided and remembered nothing until he awoke at Parkland Hospital, at which time an interne was sewing up the back of his head. He was not asked and did not testify regarding the taking of his blood or deny that he consented thereto.
*546There was no testimony showing that appellant consented to the taking of his blood, nor is there testimony that he did not assent or agree, and no suggestion that he opposed its taking.
Appellant’s testimony to the effect that he was unconscious was not before the court when the testimony of Dr. Mason was admitted, and there was no motion thereafter requesting that the testimony as to the result of the analysis of the blood sample be withdrawn, and no request that an issue as to whether or not appellant consented to the taking of the blood be submitted to the jury.
Neither in the trial court nor here is it contended that the blood sample was taken without the consent of appellant.
It was and is appellant’s position that a burden rested upon the state to prove, as a predicate for the admission of Dr. Mason’s testimony, that appellant gave his consent to the taking of the blood specimen.
Dr. Mason was not present when the blood was taken from appellant’s arm. The witness who was present had testified without objection that the specimen was taken.
Had objection been offered to the testimony of officer Custis regarding the taking of the blood a different question would be before us. But in the absence of an objection, no burden rested on the state to make further proof regarding the taking of the blood before proving the result of its analysis.
I respectfully enter my dissent.