Commonwealth v. Stephen M. McGrail (September 2nd, 2011)
Docket #10-P-571
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Facts: The defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident when his pick up truck hit a utility poll. He was picked up by the police down the street from the accident smelling of alcohol and bleeding. He was convicted of an OUI and leaving the scene of an accident. He is challenging the decision, claiming that the admission of DNA testimony was a violation of his 6th Amendment rights, and he challenges his denials of his motions to suppress evidence of the blood alcohol test and testimony by the police officers.
Issue #1: Can an expert witness give a testimony on DNA results when they were not the primary analyst of the evidence.
Yes. Defendant argues that the expert witness provided was not the expert that did the analysis on the DNA evidence. But, an expert can give opinion testimony on hearsay if that hearsay evidence could be independently administered by the right witness, in this case the lab analyst who got the actual results, and if it is the type of evidence that experts customarily testify about. The testimony in this case by the lab supervisor does not violate the 6th Amendment because the expert witness is subject to cross-examination, where the defense can question whether the evidence was mishandled or manipulated or somehow not accurate.
Issue #2: Charts not marked as evidence, used by the DNA expert witness, erroneously went to the jury as evidence, without objection from the defense. Did this error create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of jusice?
No. The DNA charts and numerical data had little value, and there is overwhelming evidence that the defendant did operate the vehicle.
Issue #3: Should the statements defended gave at the scene of the accident and at the hospital be suppressed?
No. Police properly gave the defendant his Miranda warning. Also, the interrogation done by the police at the scene and at the hospital was done correctly; while at the hospital, the defendant was in an unsecured area, surrounded by the public, and the defendant’s statements were voluntary.
Issue #4: Was drawing of the defendant’s blood at the hospital unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment?
No. The blood test was done by the physician solely for the diagnosis and the treatment of the patient, not for law enforcement purposes
Conclusion: Expert testimony was admissible and motions to suppress were denied. Judgment affirmed.
Prepared by KP
