State v. Hawkinson, Minn.Ct.App., 3/26/2012, petition for further review GRANTED, 5/30/2012. In March, 2010, police stopped, then arrested Mr. Hawkinson on suspicion of DWI; he consented to a blood alcohol test, which the police sent to the BCA for testing. The BCA reported the results – .11 – and told the police that it would destroy the sample after twelve months unless they requested its return. They didn’t and true to its word the BCA flushed the sample a year later.
Meantime, in June, 2010, counsel for Mr. Hawkinson made a demand to preserve all evidence, including blood tests. It took a while to get the case to trial so in August, 2011, on the eve of trial, everyone in the court house learned what the BCA already knew: the sample didn’t exist anymore. Mr. Hawkinson’s counsel moved to suppress or exclude the evidence of the result of the blood testing on due process, confrontation and discovery violation grounds, which, for all three reasons the trial court granted. The state appealed.
The court of appeals upholds the trial court on due process grounds, eschewing any comments on the other two grounds. In doing so, the court rejects the state’s argument that Mr. Hawkinson had to show that the destruction had been in bad faith. The court of appeals says that had the destruction occurred either in compliance with some standard practice or in accordance with state or federal regulations bad faith might be a requirement. Here, the state made no such showing of either a practice or a regulatory requirement.
The supreme court has granted review.
No comments:
Post a Comment