Court Opinion

ID: 9737814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:34:53.54772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:01.493486
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
dissenting.
Because the medical lab technician who collected Glaspey’s blood sample failed to date the laboratory form, she was called to verify that date at the administrative hearing. The States Attorney also had her testify about obtaining the blood sample:
MR. PETERSON: What type of substance did you use to wipe off his skin before you took the blood sample?
MS. BITTNER: A Proviodine Iodine swab.
MR. PETERSON: Again, it says the container seal was intact before use, a sterile, dry, clean syringe and needle were used and a non alcoholic, non volatile skin disinfectant were used, and those marks are checked. Did you check those marks?
MS. BITTNER: Yes.
MR. PETERSON: And you did follow the procedures?
MS. BITTNER: Yes.
On cross-examination Glaspey’s counsel elicited her confession that she did not know certainly that the Povidone-Iodine swab did not contain alcohol, in spite of her certification that she used a “Non-Alcoholic, non-volatile skin disinfectant.” The majority opinion concludes that this uncertainty casts enough doubt on the scientific reliability of the blood test to disqualify its admission as evidence.
In my view, however, any doubts arising from this conflicting evidence about a single detail of the blood sampling procedure affects only the evidentiary weight of the test results, not its admission as evidence. I believe that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the blood test as evidence.
My reasons have been explained before. See State v. Nygaard, 426 N.W.2d 547, 550 (N.D.1988) (Meschke, Justice, dissenting) and State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d 317, 325 (N.D.1988) (Meschke, Justice, concurring and dissenting). I would affirm.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.