Happy Halloween
Happy Halloween. Today we have some not so good soup from Division I of the Court of Appeals.
This unpublished vehicular homicide case holds no authority and may not be cited by attorneys but it does help us understand what interpretation the Court of Appeals will use when confronted by issues that are brewing in the trial courts. Brewing is used intentionally here, this Halloween day. The trial courts are a forum for defense attorneys to raise issues and see how the courts will interpret them. The lower courts are the cauldrons where issues are formulated until the right mix is found to run it up to the higher courts to make law.
Two main ingredients (issues) dominated the mix of this soup (case) – what privacy right does a person have in his hospital emergency room, and is sufficient enzyme poison used in the DUI blood draw vials from the Washington State Toxicology Lab. This mix didn’t move Division I’s palate.
The officer in this case appears to arrive at the hospital without having formed probable cause to arrest Mr. Harvey. Even so, he immediately demands private medical information under the authority of a homicide investigation (shouldn’t be allowed to says the defense). He is given whatever he wants and begins to collect information for an arrest. He walks into the private medical room Mr. Harvey is getting a CAT scan. The medical staff even act at his command and open Mr. Harvey’s eyes for the officer. Unfortunately here the Court of Appeals finds no privacy protections.
The second main ingredient in this unsavory soup is the court’s reliance on the low standards of evidence for admission of bad scientific evidence. The court fails to apply the scientific standards of evidence rule 702. In appears from the court interpretation here that any form of bad evidence could come into the trial as long as some scintilla of evidence supports it or comports with the Washington Administrative Code. Here’s what the court ruled even though it appears the defense presented evidence that the amounts of enzyme poison in the vials was insufficient.
Here, Johnston, the State toxicologist, testified that all blood vials the toxicology lab provides to law enforcement contain an anticoagulant and an enzyme preservative in powder form. According to Corn, the vials he provided to the phlebotomist taking Harvey’s blood were intact and contained a white powder. Johnston said that when he received the vials containing Harvey’s blood, they were undamaged and sealed with the blood in a usable condition. Based on his observations, Johnston concluded that Harvey’s blood sample had been mixed with enzyme preservative and anticoagulant. Given this testimony, we hold that the State met its prima facie burden of demonstrating that the blood test complied with the WACs.[19]
So the main ingredients of this soup don’t taste so good. The good news today is that its Halloween and we can just eat candy all day and skip dinner. At least thats what some little people in my house tell me. Happy Halloween.
State v. Stephen Terry Harvey, UNPUBLISHED, No. 66663-1-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, October 24, 2011.