New York Law Review

Tag: Blood Test Admissibility

  • People v. Goodell, 68 N.Y.2d 392 (1986): Admissibility of Blood Test Results in Criminally Negligent Homicide Cases

    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.

  • People v. Malone, 16 N.Y.2d 196 (1965): Admissibility of Blood Test Results & Chain of Custody

    People v. Malone, 16 N.Y.2d 196 (1965)

    Results of a blood test are admissible as evidence in court if a proper chain of identification is established, linking the defendant to the unadulterated fluid examined by a qualified person.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals considered the admissibility of blood test results in a case where the defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The County Court reversed the conviction, citing concerns about the qualifications of the blood test administrator and the possibility of contamination. The Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s decision, holding that the blood test results were admissible because a proper chain of identification had been established, linking the defendant to the unadulterated blood sample examined by a qualified chemist. The court emphasized that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the tested fluid was indeed the defendant’s blood and that it had not been tampered with.

    Facts

    The defendant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. A doctor took a blood sample from the defendant after allegedly instructing a nurse to use a nonalcoholic solution to sterilize the defendant’s arm. The doctor placed the sample in a vial, sealed it, and prepared it for mailing. A State Trooper took possession of the sample, locking it in a secure strongbox. The next day, the trooper mailed the sample via certified mail to the State Police Laboratory in Albany. A chemist at the lab tested the sample and found it to contain .02% alcohol over the legal limit for intoxication.

    Procedural History

    The trial court admitted the blood test results as evidence, and the jury convicted the defendant. The County Court reversed the conviction, finding that the blood test results were improperly admitted. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the results of a blood test are admissible in evidence when a proper chain of identification linking the defendant with the unadulterated fluid examined by a qualified person has been established.

    Holding

    Yes, because ample proof showed the liquid tested at the laboratory was the same as that taken from the arm of the defendant; thus, the results of the blood test were competent and properly admitted into evidence.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the key factor in determining the admissibility of the blood test results was whether a proper chain of identification had been established. The court found that the testimony of the doctor, the State Trooper, and the chemist sufficiently established this chain. The doctor testified that he believed a nonalcoholic solution was used to sterilize the defendant’s arm. The State Trooper testified that he secured the sample and mailed it to the lab without it being accessible to others. The chemist was qualified and performed the test.

    The court rejected the County Court’s concerns that the sample might not have been blood or that it might have been contaminated by an alcoholic antiseptic. The court stated, “Since there was ample proof that the liquid tested at the laboratory was the same as that taken from the arm of the defendant, it was not necessary to conduct an additional test to ascertain whether the sample was blood.” The court found that the testimony was sufficiently positive to allow the jury to find that a nonalcoholic preparation was used.

    The court also noted that the County Court’s order did not state whether its determination was based on law or facts. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and remitted the case for a proper determination of the questions of fact.