Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...

4. NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW WHO DREW THE BLOOD
Hennessev v. State,2010 WL 4925016 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010).
Admission of hospitat blood fesf resu/fs in defendant's trial without calting person who drew btood
did not violate HIPPA or the defendant's confrontation rights under Crawford. In this case the
primary emergency room nurse, the lab technician who tested the blood and the senior forensic
chemist for ME s office all testified about standard trauma patient care including that they all have
blood drawn in the same way.
Blackwell v. State, 2005 WL 548245, (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) (Not dqsignated for
publication).
Hospital records with blood fesf resu/fs were admitted with Busrness Records Affidavit. The
defense contested their admission because the person who drew the blood could not be identified
and did not testify. The State called the surgeon who treated the Defendant but he could not
identify who drew the blood. He said that although he did not conduct or obserue the blood draw,
he and other doctors routinely relied on such procedures and records in treating patients. There
was not evidence that an unauthorized or unqualified person drew the blood or that itwas done in
an improper manner. The results were therefore held to be admissible.
Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.] 1983, no pet.).
Proper chain of custodywas shown in admission of hospital drawn blood sample in a manslaughter
case even though physician uyifness could not testify who actually drew the blood sample.
5. NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW WHO DREW OR TESTED THE BLOOD!
Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205 (Tex.App.-Houston (141h Dist.) 2001 , no pet.).
Medical records were offered to show defendant's btood was drawn and tested. Testimony failed
to show who actually drew the btood and there was contradictory testimony about whether the
State had shown who actually tested the blood. There was testimony about the precautions taken
by the hospitalto ensure blood samples are properly drawn, Iabeled and tested. The Court held
that the testimony was adequate to link the blood result in the records to the defendant and that
the beginning and end of chain were adequately proven. That witness could not recallwho took
the sample and who fesfed ff goes to the weight not the admissibility of the evidence.
97