Court Opinion

ID: 9579173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:52:13.136346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:30.947019
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
Because in my opinion the defendant did not properly raise the question in the trial court, we need not consider whether the holding in Holland v. Parker, D.S.D., 354 F.Supp. 196, would bar the admission of the results of the blood test in this case.
After the state had called one witness, defense counsel made an oral motion, completely unsubstantiated by any affidavit or other supporting papers, for the suppression of any testimony and evidence with reference to the results of the analysis of the blood sample taken from defendant. Defense counsel’s motion stated in part that:
* * * Further, I believe that the evidence will show that the defendant was taken by the Sheriff into Midland and at that time no arrest was made of the defend*610ant, Mr. Bosanco, and that no blood test was extracted from the defendant at that time and that the blood test was not taken immediately thereafter and that therefore the remoteness of the blood test would not substantiate whether or not the defendant was under the influence at the time of the driving of the vehicle, that it would be so remote.”
The trial judge quite properly denied this motion to suppress with the observation that he was unable to make any determination as to the admissibility at that time, adding that it might very well turn out that the blood test would be inadmissible.
Thereafter, defense counsel objected to testimony regarding the results of the blood sample analysis and to the introduction of the sample on the ground that no proper foundation had been laid and that the taking of the blood sample was too remote from the time that the defendant was observed driving his vehicle. As I read the record, defense counsel did not renew his motion to suppress upon the ground that defendant had not been placed under arrest prior to the time that the blood sample was taken.
Because the trial court was quite correct in denying the oral motion to suppress that was based on nothing more than defense counsel’s assertions of what the evidence would show, any assignment of error based upon this ruling is without merit. I would hold that because defendant did not specifically include the lack of a prior arrest as one of the grounds of his objection to the introduction of the testimony regarding the results of the blood test and of the blood sample itself, he cannot now be heard to raise it for the first time on appeal. See State v. Olesen, 86 S.D. 367, 196 N.W.2d 362; State v. Halverson, 87 S.D. 110, 203 N.W.2d 421.
Also, I think that the state met its burden of showing that the blood sample was taken in accordance with proper medical procedures and that nothing occurred later to contaminate the sample. That being the case, the question of the effect of defendant’s consumption of, according to his own testimony, one shot of Everclear alcohol on the results of the blood test was properly left to the jury, especially in view of the testimony of the *611State Chemist concerning the absorption of alcohol into the blood stream after a person has had his last drink. I would hold that it was for the jury to determine the significance of the results of the blood test in the light of all of the circumstances of the case.
I would affirm the conviction.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice BIEGELMEIER concurs in this dissent.