| Victor Chandler BRICE v. STATE of Maryland | | | | 2) Whether the results of the test |
| Court of Special Appeals of Maryland | | | | should not have been admitted because the "Two |
| June 10, 1987 | | | | Hour" Rule was violated? |
| The appellant, a sixty-year-old man, he drove the | | | | The Court states that the finding of Judge that |
| truck, making service calls, all day until the | | | | the apprehension occurred at 4:16 p.m. 1) was not |
| accident occurred at 4:00 p.m. The appellant | | | | clearly erroneous as a matter of fact and 2) was |
| acknowledged having consumed four ounces of | | | | correct as a matter of law. Our affirmance of |
| liquor before going to work that morning. Another | | | | the trial court in this regard could rest equally well |
| driver, travelling behind the appellant on Route | | | | on either of two alternative holdings. As time |
| 667, observed the appellant weave to the right | | | | passes the alcohol in the blood disappears. Thus, a |
| side of the road initially and then swerve suddenly | | | | low blood alcohol content revealed by a test |
| to the left, crossing the road completely, going | | | | conducted hours after the incident would not |
| into a ditch and overturning his vehicle in an | | | | show that the defendant had not been intoxicated |
| adjacent field. | | | | or impaired at the time of the incident. An analysis |
| When Maryland State Trooper arrived at the | | | | reflects the amount of alcohol in the blood at the |
| scene at 4:05 p.m., he observed the overturned | | | | time it was withdrawn, not at the time of the |
| truck in a field and observed the appellant walking | | | | incident. The clear purpose of the two-hour |
| in the roadway. Trooper smelled an "extremely | | | | limitation is to "catch" the alcohol in the blood |
| strong odor of alcoholic beverage" upon the | | | | before it has had the chance to be metabolized. |
| appellant's breath. The trooper also noticed that | | | | The invalidity of an unduly delayed test for blood |
| the appellant's eyes were bloodshot and his | | | | alcohol, however, is one-directional. If, |
| speech was slurred. Trooper gave the appellant a | | | | notwithstanding the passage of time and |
| preliminary breath test and determined that he | | | | notwithstanding the diminution of blood alcohol |
| was a suspect for driving while intoxicated. The | | | | content by the metabolic processes of the body, |
| test results showed a blood alcohol content of | | | | the residual blood alcohol percentage is still high |
| 0.24 per cent. In that the blood was withdrawn | | | | enough to trigger the prima facie case of either |
| approximately two hours after the accident, the | | | | impairment or intoxication and to give rise to |
| blood alcohol level had inevitably been even higher | | | | either of the respective permitted inferences, the |
| at the time of the accident. Even at the lower | | | | evidentiary significance cannot be denied. If the |
| figure of 0.24 per cent, it was almost twice the | | | | blood alcohol content is still above the statutory |
| amount necessary under Md.Cts. & | | | | levels of legal significance hours after the incident, |
| Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-307(e) (0.13 per cent) to | | | | a fortiori, the suspect was inferentially impaired or |
| give rise to the prima facie inference that the | | | | intoxicated even more so at the time of the |
| appellant was intoxicated. Under all of the | | | | incident. The blood for the chemical test was |
| circumstances, he received quite a break to have | | | | withdrawn within two hours after the |
| been found guilty only of driving while impaired | | | | apprehension of the appellant. Even if there had |
| under § 21-902(b) of the Transportation | | | | been a violation of the two-hour rule, exclusion of |
| Article. Defendant appealed his conviction in the | | | | the evidence would not be called for. Even if |
| Circuit Court for Somerset County (Maryland) for | | | | there had been a violation of the two-hour rule, |
| driving while impaired. | | | | the results of a delayed test would not have |
| Issues: | | | | worked to the prejudice of the appellant but only |
| - Whether the taking of blood from the appellant | | | | to his advantage. |
| in his seriously injured condition, was a violation of | | | | Conclusion: |
| due process of law | | | | The court affirmed the conviction, finding the |
| - Whether the results of the test should not have | | | | case against defendant overwhelming. The test |
| been admitted because the "Two Hour" Rule was | | | | results revealed that his blood alcohol content was |
| violated | | | | twice the legal limit under Md. Code Ann., Cts. |
| 1) Whether the taking of blood from | | | | & Jud. Proc. § 10-307. The "Two Hour" Rule |
| the appellant in his seriously injured condition, was | | | | clock began upon arrest at 4:16 p.m., not upon the |
| a violation of due process of law? | | | | officer first suspecting defendant was intoxicated. |
| The Court held that the blood was drawn by a | | | | The test results were admissible and triggered |
| nurse and in a hospital. Since a qualified nurse | | | | the appropriate legal effect of establishing a prima |
| withdrew the blood under appropriately antiseptic | | | | facie case that defendant was intoxicated. |
| conditions, there was obviously not the threat | | | | Disclaimer: |
| that might be posed by a medically untrained | | | | These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law |
| policeman operating in a stationhouse of "personal | | | | Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views |
| risk of infection and pain." | | | | of the Justices' opinions. |