⚡ click here to view full page
Hospital Blood Draws in Maryland DUI Cases
Hospital blood draws often play a pivotal role in Maryland DUI cases. These tests can provide critical evidence of blood alcohol content (BAC) or the presence of drugs. However, admitting such evidence in court requires meeting stringent legal standards. This article provides an overview of the evidentiary requirements, common challenges, and practical considerations for the defenseof a driver charged with a dui in Maryland.
These blood draws must be analyzed differently than warrantless blood draws in Maryland DUI cases
When Are Hospital Blood Draws Used?
Hospital blood draws typically occur when:
A driver involved in an accident is taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Often blood is drawn as part of routine medical care following an incident.
While these draws can yield powerful evidence, their admissibility depends on factors such as the purpose of the test and whether the test was conducted in compliance with Maryland’s rules for evidence.
Admitting Hospital Blood Draws as Evidence
To admit hospital blood draws as evidence in a Maryland DUI case, the prosecution must navigate several evidentiary hurdles.
1. Business Records Exception
Hospital records, including blood test results, are often admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (Md. Rule 5-803(b)(6)). To qualify:
- The records must be made in the regular course of business.
- The records must be created at or near the time of the event.
- The information must be entered by someone with knowledge of the event.
Certified medical records that meet these criteria may be self-authenticating under Md. Rule 5-902(b), provided proper notice is given to the defense.
2. Authentication
The prosecution must authenticate the records by showing they are what they claim to be. This is often done through a certification from the custodian of records or testimony from a qualified witness.
3. Confrontation Clause Compliance
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant’s right to confront witnesses against them. The admissibility of blood draw evidence often hinges on whether the test results are considered “testimonial.” This would typically require testimony that the blood draw was “pathologically germaine to treatment” from a representative of the hospital with proper knowledge as to why the blood was drawn.
- Non-Testimonial Evidence: Blood tests ordered for medical treatment are typically non-testimonial and admissible without live testimony from the phlebotomist or lab analys.
- Testimonial Evidence: If the primary purpose of the test was to gather evidence for prosecution, it may be considered testimonial, triggering the defendant’s confrontation rights.
Key Challenges in Admitting Hospital Blood Draws
Even if the basic evidentiary standards are met, hospital blood draws can face challenges, such as:
1. Purpose of the Test
Evidence from tests performed primarily for medical treatment is generally admissible. However, tests ordered at the request of law enforcement may require additional justification to avoid confrontation clause violations.
2. Chain of Custody
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody for the blood sample to demonstrate its integrity. Any gaps or errors in handling can weaken the admissibility of the evidence.
3. Discrepancies in Records
Errors such as missing patient identifiers, delays in testing, or inconsistencies in the report can cast doubt on the reliability of the results (Moon v. State, 1984).
4. Testing Procedures
Often hospital blood tests are serum tests, which have significantly higher results than a “whole blood” test, which would be completed by Police in Maryland. The State would need an expert to convert this serum result into a BAC for a trial court in Maryland to understand.
Defense Strategies
For defense attorneys, challenging the admissibility of hospital blood draws can be a powerful tool. Key strategies include:
- Objecting to Authentication: Scrutinize the records for compliance with Md. Rules 5-803(b)(6) and 5-902(b). Lack of certification or an incomplete affidavit from the custodian of records can render the evidence inadmissible.
- Raising Confrontation Clause Issues: Argue that the test results are testimonial if they were conducted primarily for law enforcement purposes and that the absence of the technician or analyst violates the defendant’s confrontation rights.
- Highlighting Discrepancies: Identify inconsistencies in the test records, such as mismatched identifiers or unexplained delays, to undermine the reliability of the evidence.
- Challenging Chain of Custody: Point out any lapses or uncertainties in the handling of the blood sample.
Conclusion
Hospital blood draws are a common source of evidence in Maryland DUI cases, but their admissibility is not guaranteed. Both the prosecution and defense must carefully navigate the evidentiary requirements and constitutional considerations involved. By understanding the legal standards outlined in cases like Smith v. State and Moon v. State, attorneys can effectively advocate for their clients in these complex cases.
FAQs
Q: Are hospital blood draws always admissible in Maryland DUI cases?
A: Yes; however, hospital blood draws must meet evidentiary requirements such as authentication and compliance with the business records exception. Additionally, the purpose of the test can affect its admissibility.
Q: What makes a blood test “non-testimonial”?
A: Blood tests conducted primarily for medical treatment are considered non-testimonial and do not trigger the defendant’s confrontation rights.
Q: How can defense attorneys challenge hospital blood draw evidence?
A: By raising objections to authentication, pointing out discrepancies, challenging the chain of custody, and asserting confrontation clause violations if the evidence is testimonial.
Free Consultation