STALEY EUGENE BARRENTINE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN JOSEPH MAKELY AND NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Chemical test results are admissible in a civil case if the suspect consented, even if appended to a traffic accident report, as long as the test was not ordered solely for the report.
Appellee consented to a blood test after a vehicle accident. The results were appended to the traffic accident report but were obtained for possible c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
It is now settled in this state that the results of a chemical test for the pres ence of alcohol in the blood of a suspect, administered under section 322.261(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), are admissible into evidence if the suspect consented to the test. Such consent may be express or implied, but an implied consent affirmatively withdrawn before the test is administered is insufficient. Sambrine v. State, 386 So. 2d 546 (Fla.1980).
In the instant case appellee freely consented to a blood test following a vehicle accident. The results of that test were therefore admissible in this personal injury action unless barred by section 316.066(4), Florida Statutes (1971) (formerly section 317.171). Under that statute the results of a lawful blood alcohol test are inadmissible only if the test was ordered for the purpose of preparing, and the results thereof formed a basis for, the traffic accident report required by section 316.066(3). State v. Mitchell, 245 So. 2d 618, 623[3, 4] (Fla.1971).
Under the evidence presented to the trial court it is quite clear that the blood alcohol test was made and its results obtained solely in connection with possible criminal charges. The investigating officer affirmatively testified that neither the test nor its results were necessary to his accident report, albeit they were appended thereto as a subsequent supplement.
We therefore REVERSE the summary judgment of the trial court and REMAND for further proceedings.
SCHEB, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. State, 448 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…n to suppress. Accord Duval Motor Co. v. Woodward, 419 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1982) (results of field sobriety test inadmissible where information obtained as a part of accident investigation for use in preparing accident report); cf. Barrentine v. Makely, 406 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (results admissible where officer affirmatively testified that neither the blood test nor its results were necessary to his accident report); McKissack v. State, 243 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (evidence of blood test admissible…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 245 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1971)
- Sambrine v. State, 386 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1980)