Michael Scott Coffman v. Commonwealth of Virginia
795 S.E.2d 178
Va. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Jan. 11, 2015, Coffman was arrested after a one-car accident and taken to a hospital; after being advised of implied consent he consented to a blood test.
- A registered nurse at the hospital (not previously designated by court order) drew Coffman’s blood; analysis showed BAC of .208%.
- At trial Coffman objected to admission of the certificate of analysis, arguing Code § 18.2-268.5 requires prior circuit-court designation of nurses who withdraw blood.
- The Commonwealth stipulated the nurse had not been so designated; the trial court overruled the objection, admitted the certificate, and convicted Coffman for DUI.
- Coffman appealed, arguing statutory construction required that the phrase “designated by order of a circuit court…” modify all listed professionals (including registered nurses).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statute’s plain text and the rule of the last antecedent show licensed registered nurses may withdraw blood without a separate court designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code § 18.2-268.5 requires court designation of all listed persons (including registered nurses) before they may withdraw blood for BAC testing | Coffman: the phrase “designated by order of a circuit court…” applies to all preceding listed professionals, so a nurse must be court-designated | Commonwealth: the designation phrase modifies only the last antecedent (“technician or nurse”); licensed registered nurses and licensed practical nurses are separately authorized by their licensure | The court held the phrase modifies only the last antecedent; properly licensed registered nurses may withdraw blood without a circuit-court designation; certificate admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyce v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 644 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203 (discretion guided by correct legal conclusions)
- Woodard v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 276 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Newberry Station Homeowners Ass’n v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax Cty., 285 Va. 604 (rule of the last antecedent explained)
- Alger v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 255 (application of last-antecedent rule in statutory construction)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (last-antecedent rule and textual interpretation)
- Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958 (canvassing limits of textual canons)
- Kozmina v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 347 (plain-meaning rule for unambiguous statutes)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (consider text and structure to determine legislative intent)