At the hearing, the officer testified that he could not recall whether the person who drew the blood was a nurse, chemist, or otherwise qualified under law to draw the blood sample. The trial court then suppressed the blood evidence based on the fact that “the State has not met the burden to prove that it was [a qualified person] that took it.” The State appealed, arguing that the defendant should have the initial burden of proving an actual violation, before the burden shifted to them to prove full compliance.
On appeal, the court agreed with the State. It held that the defendant has the initial burden, which shifts to the State only when the defendant has produced evidence of a statutory violation. Thus, the failure to recall who drew the blood, rather than proof that the person who drew the blood was not qualified, was insufficient to grant the motion to suppress.
NOTE: Oddly, this ruling is inapposite to the proof necessary at trial. At trial the state would have to prove actual compliance, and the lack of recall would be insufficient to admit the result. It seems like this ruling in essence would discourage a defendant from filing a pre-trial motion, knowing that doing so would transpose the burdens. The Dissenting opinion also suggests that the ruling was incorrect for the same reasons.
Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário