Melissa Dromgoole v. State, 01-13-00931-CR

Background

Appellant Melissa Dromgoole was arrested for DWI; during arrest she told Officer Nunn she has syncope ("my blood pressure drops and then I faint").
A blood draw was performed; appellant contends the draw posed medical risk given her syncope and that the officer should have informed the nurse or performed different procedure (e.g., have her lie flat and check blood pressure).
Trial evidence included expert testimony (Dr. Joseph Varon) explaining syncope often involves transient low blood pressure on position change and that blood draws for syncope-prone patients should be done lying down and with blood-pressure monitoring.
The court of appeals issued an opinion rejecting appellant’s Fourth Amendment claim (finding syncope did not affect blood pressure), applying the Reynolds modified standard rather than the Kelly multi-factor test to assess blood-test reliability, and crediting State experts invoking Henry’s Law to uphold the blood analysis.
Appellant moved for rehearing arguing: the opinion misstated/oversimplified medical facts; Reynolds is inapplicable to blood testing because DPS regulation for blood is not as comprehensive as for breath; the lab deviated from validated parameters (vial oven temperature) contrary to accrediting standards; the burden of proving scientific reliability remains on the State; and reliance on Henry’s Law did not substitute for instrument validation.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State/Court's Argument	Held (court of appeals opinion)
1. Fourth Amendment: blood draw risk from disclosed syncope	Dromgoole told officer she has syncope causing BP drops and fainting; that placed officer on notice of medical risk and duty to notify nurse or take precautions	Court found medical testimony showed appellant does not have low blood pressure; a ‘‘warning of low blood pressure’’ would not have alerted to risk	Court rejected Fourth Amendment challenge and affirmed admissibility of blood draw evidence
2. Standard for admissibility of blood-test evidence (Kelly v. Reynolds)	Kelly multi-factor reliability analysis should govern blood-test challenges; Reynolds (modified for breath) is inapplicable because Legislature and DPS have detailed breath rules but not equivalent blood rules	Court applied Reynolds: when DPS rules govern technique and lab follows DPS/accreditation, detailed Kelly inquiry is unnecessary	Court applied Reynolds standard and declined full Kelly analysis
3. Deviation from validated parameters (vial oven temp) and DPS/accrediting standards	Lab deviated from validated instrument parameters; ASCLD/LAB standards require casework per validated methods; such deviation violated DPS/accreditation requirements and undermines reliability	State experts said deviation did not render results unreliable; court treated DPS/accreditation compliance as the relevant baseline	Court held technique was properly applied under DPS standards (did not find invalidating violation)
4. Burden of proof on admissibility of scientific evidence	Proponent (State) must prove admissibility and reliability by clear-and-convincing evidence under Rule 702/Kelly; burden should not shift to defendant per Pham	Court relied on Pham to conclude that once State shows equipment functioning properly, defendant bears burden to show evidence otherwise unreliable	Court shifted burden to defendant to rebut the State’s showing that equipment functioned properly
5. Reliance on Henry’s Law to validate instrument performance	Henry’s Law (ratio of alcohol to n-propanol constant in sealed vial) alone is insufficient; application presumes instrument maintains fixed temperature and requires validation at those parameters	State experts relied on Henry’s Law and instrument testimony to show ratio unaffected by oven-temp change; court credited that testimony	Court accepted Henry’s Law-based expert testimony and found it did not disprove reliability as a matter of law

Key Cases Cited

Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (multi-factor test for admissibility and reliability of scientific evidence)
Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (modified standard for breath-test challenges where DPS rules govern)
Pham v. State, 175 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (discussing burden in suppression context and causal connection for Article 38.23 challenges)
State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (proponent bears burden to prove admissibility once evidence is objected to)
Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (requiring objective validation beyond expert assertion for novel scientific methodology)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discussing reliability and admissibility of expert/scientific evidence)
Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (standards for expert testimony reliability)