Court Opinion

ID: 9649279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:47:25.846372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:09.541332
License: Public Domain

Grimes, J.,
dissenting-. It is conceded that the use of alcohol to swab the skin or sterilize the equipment will affect the result of a blood test adversely to the defendant. The method of securing the sample is therefore an important part of the whole test.
The State has the burden of laying a proper foundation for the admission of the evidence by showing that the test was properly administered. State v. Reenstierna, 101 N. H. 286. I would hold that “ reasonable proof of the reliability of the specimen is just as essential to the foundation as is the reliability of the test itself” ( Columbus v. Marks, 118 Ohio App. 359, 361 ) or the identity of the sample. State v. Reenstierna, supra; 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, s. 830.
By eliminating any requirement that the prosecution make a prima facie showing of reliability of the sample the majority deprives the defendant of the opportunity to show contamination by cross-examination of the State’s witnesses. Bruyere v. Castellucci, ( R. I. 1964 ) 200 A.2d 226 and places upon him the burden of showing it by affirmative evidence.
While the evidence in this case is sufficient to lay a foundation as to the identity of the sample there is no evidence as to its reliability and I must therefore respectfully dissent.