Emily Lynn Aponte v. Commonwealth of Virginia
68 Va. App. 146
Va. Ct. App.2017Background
- On April 26, 2014, Emily Aponte crossed the center line and collided head-on; her six-year-old son later died and the van driver was seriously injured.
- Witnesses saw Aponte with beer cans at the scene and heard her request that 911 not be called, and a trooper later found beer cans in nearby woods.
- Trooper Musgrove arrived, investigated the scene, then traveled to the hospital (~30–40 minutes later); breath tests at ~6:23–6:30 p.m. read .130 and .109 BAC. A voluntary blood draw was taken at 7:15 p.m., yielding .116% BAC.
- Aponte moved to suppress the blood certificate claiming coerced consent; the trial court denied suppression, finding exigent circumstances justified the warrantless draw.
- Aponte sought admission of her vehicle’s airbag control module (ACM) data to contest aggravated manslaughter; the trial court excluded it as hearsay and unreliable.
- At trial the Commonwealth’s experts performed retrograde extrapolation estimating Aponte’s BAC at the accident between .156% and .196%; jury convicted her of involuntary manslaughter, DWI (second offense) with a child, maiming, and child abuse/neglect (the latter not before this appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aponte) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether blood-certificate should be suppressed because consent was coerced and no exigent circumstances justified a warrantless draw | Consent was involuntary (felt she had no choice); dissipation of alcohol alone cannot create exigent circumstances | Officer reasonably faced exigency: serious crash, investigation delay, evidence-dissipation risk, and special facts (scene complexity, concealment of beer) | Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw; suppression denied |
| Whether ACM (crash data) should be admissible | ACM would show speed/braking/steering supporting only momentary inattention, negating gross/wanton conduct | ACM was hearsay and Aponte failed to show sufficient foundation/reliability | Exclusion upheld (even if error, harmless because jury convicted of lesser involuntary manslaughter) |
| Whether Commonwealth proved intoxication at time of accident (motion to strike) | Evidence insufficient as matter of law to prove intoxication at crash time | Retrograde extrapolation by toxicology expert supported inference of high BAC at time of crash | Issue waived on appeal because Aponte presented her own evidence after denial of motion to strike |
| Whether McNeely/Birchfield require warrant for blood in DUI cases | McNeely precludes exigency findings based solely on alcohol dissipation; warrants generally required | McNeely requires case-by-case analysis; in serious-accident "special facts" may support exigency | McNeely applied; here facts (serious crash, investigation delay, concealment) created exigency so warrantless draw lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (recognizes exigency may justify warrantless blood draw in serious-accident facts)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (no per se exigency from alcohol dissipation; exigency is fact-specific)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (police may not create exigency by violating Fourth Amendment)
- Collins v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 486 (overview of exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Malbrough v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 163 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Hairston v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 552 (appellate review principles and mixed question standard)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (addresses constitutional limits on blood draws; confirms exigent-circumstances exception remains available)