Krause v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 743
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and his blood was drawn at a hospital by Rachel Lopez, an EMT-I.
- Lopez’s primary hospital duty was drawing blood in non-emergency settings, not performing EMS on-scene care.
- Section 724.017(a) limits who may take a blood specimen; § 724.017(c) excludes EMS personnel from the definition of qualified technician.
- The trial court made factual findings about Lopez’s training and duties, including that she drew 50–100 blood samples daily and knew the DWI blood-draw protocol.
- The court of appeals held that Lopez fell within EMS personnel and thus was excluded as a qualified technician under § 724.017(c).
- The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding Lopez was not EMS personnel for purposes of § 724.017 and was a qualified technician.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is LopezEMS personnel under §724.017? | Krause: EMS excludes Lopez from qualified technician status. | Krause: Hospital EMT-I acts as EMS personnel; excluded by statute. | No; Lopez was not EMS personnel under §724.017. |
| Is Lopez a qualified technician under §724.017? | Krause: Lopez’s duties and training make her a qualified technician. | Krause: Even with phlebotomy duties, EMS exclusion applies; not qualified. | Yes; Lopez qualified as a technician; the exclusion did not apply. |
| Does Laird control the result? | Krause: Laird supports excluding EMS personnel where appropriate. | Krause: Laird is distinguishable and not binding here. | Laird not controlling; distinguishable reasoning rejected. |
| How should legislative history vs. plain text be treated here? | Krause: Text and context support Lopez as qualified technician. | Krause: Statutory text clearly excludes EMS personnel; legislative history not controlling. | Court relied on plain text with contextual interpretation; historical discussion limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krause v. State, 368 S.W.3d 863 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (EMS personnel exclusion and phlebotomy qualifications discussed)
- Torres v. State, 109 S.W.3d 602 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003) (phlebotomist as a qualified technician under §724.017)
- State v. Bingham, 921 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996) (phlebotomist qualified technician under §724.017)
- Cavazos v. State, 969 S.W.2d 454 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998) (evidence required to show phlebotomist qualifications)
- Mahaffey v. State, 364 S.W.3d 908 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (statutory construction principles cited)
- Laird, 38 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000) (paramedic not applicable; sanitation location considerations discussed)