JOSEPH MCBRIDE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 state is not entitled to presumptions of impairment if quality assurance mandates under the implied consent law are not enforced, particularly regarding blood sample standards.
The Second District affirmed petitioner's conviction, citing a prior case. The court reviewed a certified question regarding the admissibility of bloo…
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 Reliability Of Scientific Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review McBride v. State, 774 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in which the Second District affirmed petitioner’s conviction with a citation to its opinion in State v. Townsend, 746 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. Art. V., § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.; see also Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
In State v. Miles, 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla.2000), and Townsend v. State, 774 So. 2d 693 (Fla.2000), we were presented with the following question certified to be of great public importance:
WHERE THE STATE LAYS THE THREE-PRONGED PREDICATE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN ROBERTSON V. STATE, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla.1992), THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY OF THE BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS, IS THE STATE ENTITLED TO THE LEGISLATIVELY CREATED PRESUMPTIONS OF IMPAIRMENT?
We answered the question in the negative by holding (1) the absence of appropriate standards with respect to the maintenance of blood samples drawn pursuant to the implied consent law renders rule 11D-8.012, Florida Administrative Code, inadequate and (2) the statutory presumptions of impairment are not applicable where the mandate for quality assurance under the implied consent statutory scheme is not enforced. See Miles, 775 So. 2d at 956-57; Townsend, 774 So. 2d at 693.
We quash the decision below only to the extent it is inconsistent with Miles and Townsend, and remand the case to the Second District for proceedings consistent with Miles and Townsend.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McBride v. State, 816 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…court’s decision in Townsend. See Townsend v. State, 774 So. 2d 693, 693 (Fla.2000) (Townsend II). Subsequently the court quashed our holding in the instant case, “only to the extent it is inconsistent with ... Townsend [II].” See McBride v. State, 788 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla.2001). Although pursuant to Townsend II it was clear error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the statutory presumptions of impairment, we conclude that the error was harmless and affirm McBride’s conviction. Error is harmless on…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Miles, 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2000)
- Ingold v. State, 746 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Townsend v. State, 774 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2000)