On September 18, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in the case People v. Maclean, upholding a jury conviction for operating while intoxicated and causing death. One of the defendant’s principal arguments on appeal was the trial court erred by allowing admission of the blood alcohol test result, claiming there was insufficient testimony regarding the chain of custody.

The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion allowing the blood alcohol test results:

“At trial, the nurse testified that she drew defendant’s blood upon his arrival at the hospital, pursuant to a doctor’s orders. The blood went into a vacuum-sealed tube, which she labeled and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The medical technologist testified that, according to her analysis, defendant’s blood alcohol level was .28. The results of the blood alcohol test were then admitted into evidence. Defense counsel cross-examined both witnesses regarding their involvement in the collection and testing of defendant’s blood, and, during closing argument, highlighted the deficiencies in the chain of evidence. The record arguably supported a conclusion that the chain of evidence was somewhat deficient regarding the manner in which defendant’s blood sample arrived at the laboratory for testing. However, no evidence was presented, and defendant does not argue, that the blood actually tested did not belong to defendant. Moreover, given the comparable result in the unchallenged police blood-alcohol test, the accuracy of the hospital blood-alcohol test is evident. Any deficiency in the chain of custody or evidence goes toward the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the report containing defendant’s blood alcohol level.”

Click here to read the entire opinion.

On September 18, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in the case People v. Waldeck, upholding a jury conviction for operating while intoxicated. The defendant was sentenced by the trial court to probation for two years and 183 days to serve in jail. This was the defendant’s third offense.

“Defendant’s conviction arises from a traffic accident that occurred on October 30, 2003. The principal question at trial was whether defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The prosecutor contended that defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, but defendant asserted that the alcohol in his system was consumed shortly after the accident occurred.”

“A store clerk was the only witness who encountered defendant before defendant claimed to have consumed alcohol after the accident in order to control his breathing. While the clerk testified that he did not notice anything unusual in defendant’s demeanor or smell the odor of intoxicants, he also stated that he had only a brief conversation with defendant and did not pay close attention to him. Defendant appears to contend that because the other witnesses who encountered him after the accident also did not notice anything unusual in his demeanor or smell the odor of intoxicants, Officer Prough was either mistaken or lying. However, one witness testified that he was too far away to form an opinion about whether defendant was intoxicated, Elbert Sylvester had lost his sense of smell, and his wife stated that she was not really paying attention to defendant. Officer Prough noticed the odor and determined that it came from defendant. He stated that defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy and, after having defendant perform several field sobriety tests, concluded that defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The jury was able to view a police video of defendant’s interaction with Officer Prough and performance during the sobriety tests. Defendant’s blood alcohol content was .09 approximately one hour after the accident. Defendant testified regarding his version of events.”

Click here to read the entire opinion.

DUI cases in Michigan begin at the trial court level and can be appealed once as a matter of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which can uphold or reverse the trial court’s ruling, or it can remand the case (send it back) to the trial court with instructions. The defendant can then petition the Michigan Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ ruling, meaning there is no automatic right to have the Michigan Supreme Court hear an appeal. Finally, the highest court that can review a Michigan DUI case is the United States Supreme Court, though again, the defendant must first petition the Court to hear the appeal. However, the U.S. Supreme Court will only review a case in limited circumstances — final judgments that involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law. Most DUI cases that are appealed will not go any further than the Court of Appeals.