Court Opinion

ID: 9747478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:17:27.045452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.985095
License: Public Domain

*17WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the opinion of the Court on the first three issues. On the fourth issue, however, I respectfully disagree and therefore dissent in the result.
The fourth issue reads:
“Does the evidence, as a matter of law, constitute sufficient foundation for the admissibility of the results of the blood alcohol test?”
The Court answers in the negative. I would answer in the affirmative.
The Court in the opinion says, “that the certificate is prima facie evidence that the swab and tubes contain in pure form what they purport to contain and in the amounts asserted.” I understand the certificate is also prima facie evidence that the contents as stated “are new and have not been previously used” and that “No alcohol is used in the manufacturing procedures for these items or in the sterilization of the VACUTAINER needle.”
In the instant case there has been a random sampling. Whether or not this check on accuracy is necessary is not determined.
I turn to the taking, preservation and analysis of the blood. “Each of the VACU-TAINER tubes contained a granular white substance which Dr. Feagin recognized to be consistent in color and texture with the anti-coagulant indicated on the Manufacturer’s Certificate as sodium fluoride and EDTA (Nai) * * * Mr. Roy, being a duly qualified chemist, conducted a test and analysis of the blood sample pursuant to the modified Dubowski method for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration therein.” I quote from the agreed statement of facts. If the case had gone to trial, Dr. Feagin and Mr. Roy would have been available for cross-examination. In light of their professional training, it is, it seems to me, implicit in the stated facts that they would know the “attributes and function of the Benzalkonium Chloride solution on the swab, the Sodium Fluoride, and Disodium Edetate [EDTA (Na2)] in the tubes.”
The Pharmacopoeia and Formulary, with its standing under our statutes, gives the answers we would expect — one an antiseptic and the others anti-coagulants.
The cases cited by the Court on the fourth issue, in each of which the evidence was held admissible, are not label or certificate cases. In my view, for this reason they do not reach the heart of the case before us.
Having accepted the worth of the certificate as prima facie evidence, I have no difficulty in accepting with like weight the evidence I have noted covering the taking, preservation and analysis of the blood sample.
I would hold the blood test to be admissible. Thus the agreement of the defendant to plead guilty to the charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by the use of intoxicating liquor would come into force.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice POMEROY joins in this dissent.