Court Opinion

ID: 9647563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:40:26.625597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:50.770679
License: Public Domain

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, dissenting. I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds that the result of a blood test may be admitted into evidence in a D WI case even though the State did not prove that the test was performed according to the methods approved by the State Department of Health. A part of the applicable statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-1045, is expressly in point: (b) Chemical analyses of the person’s blood, urine, or breath to be considered valid under the provisions of this act [§§ 75-1045,75-1046,] and Act 346 of the 1957 [§ 75-1031.1] as amended, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the State Department of Health or by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the State Department of Health for this purpose. The State Department of Health is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analyses, and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the State Department of Health. (c) The State Department of Health is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. In response to the statute, the State Department of Health adopted the following regulation: PART B. BLOOD SAMPLING 3.20 Sample Collection. Blood samples may be collected from living individuals only by persons authorized by law and by means of a sterile, dry syringe and hypodermic needle or other sterile equipment. The skin at the area of puncture shall be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected with an aqueous solution of nonvolatile antiseptic such as benzalkonium chloride (zephiran). Alcohol or other volatile organic disinfectant solutions shall not be used as a skin antiseptic or to clean hypodermic needles, syringes, or containers. The State did not prove that the test was given in compliance with the regulation. The witness who testified about the blood alcohol test result, the emergency room physician, testified that he only learned of the test results from hospital records; he did not personally take the blood test and did not know who did; he did not know what type of equipment was used, and did not know whether an aqueous (non-alcoholic) skin preparation was used; he did not know whether Department of Health regulations were complied with; he did not know what type of test was used or whether it was approved by the Department; he did not know who analyzed the blood sample, or who entered the result into the hospital records; and he did not know whether the hospital was licensed, or exempted from licensing, for testing for blood alcohol content. The hospital technicians working at the hospital on the night of the test did not know who took the blood sample or who analyzed it; they only knew that one of them entered the result into the computer terminal. The State did not put on any evidence by the technicians about the equipment, the manner of administering the test, or licensing. In short, the State simply did not prove compliance with the regulation. Under the express language of the statute, failure to prove compliance with the regulations prevents the test results from being considered valid, and, accordingly, should prevent the result from being admitted into evidence. However, the majority creates an exception when the test is ordered by an emergency room physician for use in treatment of his patient. In order to justify such an exception the majority opinion states that the applicable statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-1045 “does not dictate the validity of all blood tests. . . .” The majority opinion clearly ignores the express language of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-1045(b)(l) which provides: Chemical analysis of the persons blood . . . to be considered valid under the provisions of this act. . . shall have been performed according to methods approved by the State Department of Health. In addition, one of the primary purposes of the statute is to assure the public that all tests admitted into evidence can be relied upon. Newton v. Clark, 266 Ark. 237, 582 S.W.2d 955 (1979). One result of the majority opinion will be to undermine the assurance of a reliable test. I respectfully dissent. Purtle and Newbern, JJ., join in this dissent.