State of Maine v. Googoo

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Googoo

DecidedJuly 6, 2001

DocketCUMcr-00-1031

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Googoo (State of Maine v. Googoo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Maine v. Googoo, (Me. Super. Ct. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Reava- Tee -ol.

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT Cumberland, ss. Criminal Action Docket No. CR-00-1031 “ TED HOM fee om

vo /

STATE OF MAINE, Vv. DECISION AND ORDER PAMELA GOOGOO

Defendant

I. BACKGROUND The defendant is charged by indictment with aggravated operating under the

influence (29-A M.RS.A. § 2411), Class C, and reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon (17-A M.RS.A. §-A M.RS.A. §-A M.RS.A. §-A M.RS.A. M.RS.A. § 211), Class C.

The charges against the defendant stem from a motor vehicle accident in Casco, Maine on July 18, 1998. The court is informed that the defendant was initially charged in the District Court (Bridgton) with one or more criminal offenses or traffic infractions arising out of the accident. '

The accident occurred on a rural road in the town of Casco when the defendant's vehicle veered into the travel lane of another vehicle. There was a

head-on collision resulting in serious injuries to the drivers of both cars. They were

1 The District Court records are not part of the docket or records in Superior Court. The court has ordered that the District Court records be transferred to this court. The court is informed that when it sought to obtain the defendant's medical records from MMC, the hospital filed a Motion to Quash. The District Court allowed the State to only receive the results of the test and nothing more, After getting the test result indicating that the defendant had an excessive blood-alcohol level, it did not seek further process to get additional information even thought the basis to establish probable cause under section 357 was increased with knowledge of the test result. each taken to the hospital. The investigating officers determined that there was reason to believe that Ms. Googoo had been drinking beer before the accident and that her consumption of alcohol may have been a contributing factor.

The trooper went to Maine Medical Center (MMC) to get a blood sample, but because of the defendant's condition and the events taking place in the emergency room area he was not able to get a blood sample using the kit approved by the Department of Human Services (DHS). See 29-A M.RS.A. § 2431(2).

II. TEST RESULTS

In the regular course of examination and treatment in the emergency room, hospital personnel routinely take a number of blood samples for immediate transfer to the laboratory for diagnosis and other purposes. A test was performed on the

defendant's blood to detect the presence of alcohol which produced a result of “Ethanol 222 mg/dl.” See State’s exhibit #1. ?

The State learned of the test result, but not any other information concerning

the taking of the blood sample, when it subpoenaed the defendant’s medical records

from MMC.

At trial the State says it will seek to admit the test result pursuant to 16 M.R.S.A. § 357 which states in part:

Hospital records and copies of records Records kept by hospitals and other medical facilities licensed under the laws of this State . . . shall be admissible, as evidence in the courts of this State so far as such records relate to the treatment and _medical history of such cases and the court shall admit copies of such records, if certified by the persons in custody thereof to be true and

2 For purposes of this hearing, counsel agreed that this level of ethanol would translate into

approximately 0.18% +/- to establish a blood-alcohol level for prosecution under 29-A M.RS.A. § 2411, Criminal OUI. complete, but nothing therein shall be admissible as evidence which

has reference to the question of liability. .

Notwithstanding this section, the result ofa laboratory or any

other test kept by a hospital . . . which reflects the blood-alcohol

concentration, shall not be excluded as evidence in a criminal .

proceeding by reason of any claim of confidentiality or privilege and

may be admitted provided that the result is relevant and reliable

evidence if the proceeding is one in which the operator of a motor

vehicle .. . is alleged to have operated under the influence . . . and the

court is satisfied that probable cause exists to believe that the operator

committed the offense charged. (emphasis added) 16 M.LRS.A. § 357, P.L. 1987, C. 791, § 3. 3

I]. RELIABILITY

The defendant has filed a motion asking the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning the defendant’s blood-alcohol level. At the request of counsel, the court held an evidentiary hearing and finds that a blood sample was taken from the defendant during routine and regular treatment for her injuries at the hospital, as opposed to the more common process under 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2431 et seq..

Upon the defendant's challenge to admission of the test result, the State offered evidence that blood is routinely taken from patients in the emergency room pursuant to standard hospital procedures and that it is examined and tested soon afterwards in the laboratory also according to standard procedures.

IV. DISCUSSION Section 357 and M.R.Evid. 803(4) (Statements for Purposes of Medical

Diagnosis or Treatment) allow certain records and test results into evidence without

3 Neither the court nor counsel were able to find any recorded legislative history of the 1987 amendment allowing into evidence results of hospital blood-alcohol test results which was part of a number of statutory changes relating to prosecution for operating under the influence. further foundation because of the inherent reliability of hospital practices where doctors and healthcare personnel routinely rely upon records and test results for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation of the patients, often in critical and life- threatening situations. Their primary purpose, however, is not for admission as evidence in a criminal case.

The blood test procedures required under Maine’s OUI statutes recognize that this evidence is most commonly gathered outside of hospital settings and involve the interaction of personnel from multiple of disciplines with people who are under the influence and may be less than cooperative or understanding.

In this case, the State offered no information as to the identity of the person who took the blood sample, how it was taken, from where it was taken and what was done with it for transfer to the laboratory. The State was also unable to offer evidence as to the testing procedures utilized by the laboratory in this particular case. Section 357 allows the admission of the test result if it is “relevant and reliable.” It is clearly relevant, but the defendant has raised substantial question as to its reliability and the State has not rebutted the questions raised by the defense. In a criminal proceeding, the burden is clearly on the State to show the result to be reliable.

The State relies upon State v. Francis, 610 A.2d 743 (Me 1992) for the proposition that hospital records are admissible without attesting witnesses. Francis is distinguishable because it did not contest the reliability of the evidence, but rather, challenged the conviction on the basis that the defendant had been deprived of his 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses. Francis is, however, instructive,

because it establishes that hospital records are inherently reliable. The Court stated that “treating physicians have every reason to be truthful, accurate, and complete when preparing hospital records, and they have no motive to lie.” id. at 745. But here, the defendant has not challenged the accuracy of the records. He has put the State to its proof of the reliability of the testing process. The State has not met the challenge.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI