STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DENNIS SCLAFANI, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order excluding a blood sample from evidence in a DUI manslaughter case, holding that blood drawn for medical purposes need not comply with HRS regulations but may be admitted upon demonstration of the technician's qualifications, test reliability, and the meaning of results.
Blood samples drawn for medical purposes need not comply with HRS regulatory requirements but are admissible upon the state's demonstration that the technician is qualified, the test is reliable, and the meaning of the test results is established. The trial court's order excluding the blood sample was improper.
[1] Blood samples drawn for medical purposes are admissible in criminal proceedings if the state establishes the reliability of the test, the qualifications of the examiner,…
[2] The admissibility test for blood samples drawn for medical purposes differs from the test for blood samples drawn for legal purposes, which requires substantial complianc…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the blood taken for medical purposes was not drawn or tested under procedures sufficient to ensure its reliability as criminal evidence; and that the blood sample was not maintained under a rehable chain of custody.”
Describes the trial court's improper reasoning for excluding the evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Sclafani was charged with DUI manslaughter. The trial court issued an order in limine excluding a blood sample from evidence, finding it wa…
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 Dui Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the state’s petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order in limine which excluded from evidence respondent’s blood sample in his forthcoming trial upon the charge of DUI manslaughter. State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988).
The trial court applied inappropriate criteria by determining that the blood taken for medical purposes was not drawn or tested under procedures sufficient to ensure its reliability as criminal evidence; and that the blood sample was not maintained under a rehable chain of custody.
In State v. Strong, 504 So. 2d 758, 760 (Fla.1987), a direct appeal taken upon the defendant’s manslaughter conviction, the court held that test results were properly admitted where the blood sample was drawn for a medical purpose by a qualified health care professional, and where the state establishes the traditional predicate for admissibility: the test’s reliability; the examiner’s qualifications; and the meaning of the test results.
This “medical purposes” admissibility test differs from the “legal purposes” test which focuses on the state’s substantial compliance with HRS’ relevant regulations as adopted by section 316.1933(2)(b). Strong, 504 So. 2d at 759, 760; Michie v. State, 632 So. 2d 1106, 1107-1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
In Strong, the supreme court held that the HRS regulations for admitting legal blood need not be complied with when the state seeks to admit into evidence the results of medical blood. To admit the results of legal blood, the state must comply with the methods approved by HRS. See generally, Fla. Admin. Code R. 11D-8.013. If there is substantial compliance with HRS’ regulations, and a result of .08 or more is obtained, that fact shall be prima facie evidence that the person was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. § 316.1934(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). See also Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992). The level of medical blood does not in and of itself supply any comparable prima facie evidence of impairment.
Accordingly, the reliability criteria as stated in Strong governs. With medical blood, the state must demonstrate that the technician is qualified and that the test is reliable. Additionally, the state must demonstrate the test results’ meaning. Through the phlebo-tomist, the lab technician and the computer coordinator, the state demonstrated all of the above in the present case. Accordingly, we grant the state’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order in limine.
STONE, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnes v. State, 743 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…. The style and format of the motion suggest that it was not prepared by the Attorney General’s office. . See State v. Johnston, No. 98-3402 (pending); State v. Scibana, 726 So. 2d 793, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Sclafani, 704 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); State v. Gullett, 652 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); State v. Tremblay, 642 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Wall v. State, 615 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); State v. Zeno…
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. & Comcar Indus., Inc. v. LaPOINTE, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…psychiatric evaluation in November of 1995. Dr. McClane’s $675 bill for the evaluation is at issue. A petition for benefits sought payment and the parties listed this bill as at issue in the pretrial stipulation. See Citrus World, Inc. v. Mullins, 704 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). CCC and Comear argue that they should not have to pay for the psychiatric evaluation Dr. McClane performed because they offered a psychiatric evaluation by another psychiatrist. The rule is that the employee is required to requ…1 / 2
-
Baber v. State, 738 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ted by the federal courts. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2538 n. 8, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); United States v. Norton, 867 F. 2d 1354, 1363 (11th Cir.1989). Nor do we agree with the appellant that our decision in State v. Sclafani, 704 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) is applicable. In Sclafani we stated in dicta that blood taken for medical purposes was admissible in a DUI manslaughter case where the “traditional predicate” of Strong is laid. It does not appear from our opinion in Scla-fani h…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Strong, 504 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1987)
- Michie v. State, 632 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)