People v. Goodell, 68 N.Y.2d 392 (1986)
Blood samples taken pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, even without a separate court order, are admissible in prosecutions for criminally negligent homicide under the Penal Law, provided the statutory requirements for taking the sample are met.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide after a single-car accident in which his passenger died. A blood sample taken while the unconscious defendant was at the hospital revealed intoxication. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the blood test results were admissible. The Court found that the defendant failed to properly preserve the argument that a separate court order was required under People v. Moselle. The Court further reasoned that the blood sample was taken in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, as it was taken within two hours of arrest by a registered nurse at the request of a police officer with reasonable grounds to believe the defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192. The Court relied on the implied consent provision of the statute, even though the defendant was unconscious.
Facts
On November 3, 1979, the defendant was involved in a single-car accident where he was the driver, and his passenger was killed.
After the accident, the unconscious defendant was taken to a hospital.
While still unconscious at the hospital, the defendant was arrested, and a blood sample was taken.
The blood sample revealed that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10) after a jury trial.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether blood sample results taken pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, without a separate court order, may be used in prosecutions brought under the Penal Law.
2. Whether the results of a blood test are admissible if the blood sample was not taken in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194.
Holding
1. No, because the defendant failed to raise that specific argument at the suppression hearing.
2. No, because the sample was taken within two hours of the arrest by a registered nurse at the request of a police officer, who had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant had been operating a vehicle in violation of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and the defendant’s consent to provide a blood sample was implied under section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, notwithstanding that he was unconscious at the time of the blood withdrawal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals first addressed the defendant’s argument that the blood test results should have been suppressed under People v. Moselle, which concerned the use of blood samples taken under the Vehicle and Traffic Law in Penal Law prosecutions. The Court found that this argument was not properly preserved for review because the defendant failed to raise this specific objection at the suppression hearing, citing People v. Colon and People v. Thomas.
Turning to the defendant’s second claim, the Court reasoned that the blood sample was taken in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194. The Court emphasized that the sample was taken within two hours of the arrest by a registered nurse at the request of a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, which prohibits operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The Court relied on the implied consent provision of § 1194, stating, “Defendant’s consent to provide a blood sample was implied under section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, notwithstanding that he was unconscious at the time of the blood withdrawal” (citing People v. Kates). Because the statute’s requirements were met, there was no basis for suppressing the blood test results.
The Court concluded that because the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 were satisfied, the blood sample was properly admitted as evidence and the conviction was affirmed.