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

6. PROVING HOSPITAL BLOOD RESULTS WITH BUSINESS RECORDS
AFFIDAVIT
Desilets v. Stdte, 2010 WL 3910588 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2010, no pet.) (Not designated for
publication).
This was a case where fhe Sfafe offered the hospital records without calling the person who took
the blood specimen. The defense argued that violated their right to confront the witness. The
Court held that blood resu/fs from blood drawn for medical purposes that are separate from the
criminal prosecution are not 'Testimonial"
because they are not made for the purpose of
establishing a fact in a criminal prosecution; therefore, defendant's confrontation rights were not
implicated.
Goodman v. State, 302 S.W.3d 462 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2010, pdr ref'd).
This was a case where the State offered the hospital records without calling the person in the lab
who tested the blood. Court held that defendant's hospital blood test resu/fs showing his excessive
blood-alcohol level were non-testimonial, and thus their admr'ssion without testimony of person who
actually did the testing did not violate Confrontation Clause in defendant's prosecution for third
offense of driving while intoxicated.
G. SANITARY PLACE REQUIREMENT
Adams v. State,808 S.W. 2d250, (Tex.App.-Houston [1"1Dist.] 1991, no pet.).
Defendant contends that an inspection a month before the blood was drawn at the hospital does
not show the sanitary condition when blood was drawn. The statute does not require such
evidence. lt requiresthat a "periodic" inspection be done, not an inspection on the date blood was
drawn. Even without the nurseb affidavit, the trialjudge could have concluded that Sf. Josephb
Hospital was a "sanitary place," thtrs satisfying the first part of the statutory predicate.
H. HOSPITAL DRAWN SERUM.BLOOD TEST
Wooten v. State, 267 S.W.3d 289 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.]2008).
Ihis case involved an objection to the admissibility of a medical blood draw result. There was a
Kelly hearing and the case provides a good discussion of the wifnesses called and the nature of
their testimony. The Court upheld the judge's decision to admit the results into evidence. The
Court found it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement for the Trial Court to conclude the
State met the three Kelly factors by clear and convincing evidence regarding the Dade Dimension
RXL. Accordingly, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing appellant's Dimension
RXL bloOd alcoholresulfs or the expert wifness testimony regarding appellant's blood fesf resu/fs
to be presented to the jury.
98