State of Tennessee v. Grace Ann Blair
M2015-01231-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- Grace Ann Blair was arrested for DUI and DUI per se after driving erratically on Sept. 14, 2013; she consented to a blood draw that showed BAC 0.17%.
- The TBI screened the sample for alcohol (not zolpidem/Ambien because policy stops further testing if BAC ≥ 0.08); the lab report noted evidence would be destroyed after 60 days.
- The blood sample was kept roughly one year and was destroyed on November 3, 2014; defense learned the sample would be destroyed earlier in 2014 but did not seek testing until December 2014.
- Defense retained an expert who opined that zolpidem can cause amnesia/automatism and that toxicological testing of the blood could confirm presence/level of Ambien relevant to an involuntary-act defense.
- Trial court found the destroyed sample potentially exculpatory and that its loss irreparably prejudiced Blair, dismissed the indictment; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Blair's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State had a constitutional duty to preserve the blood sample | No duty — blood taken for alcohol testing isn’t required to be preserved beyond lab policy; presence of Ambien wouldn’t be apparently exculpatory | Yes — sample could show zolpidem causing automatism/amnesia and thus be potentially exculpatory | No duty to preserve arose here; the destroyed sample did not violate due process |
| Whether the destroyed sample was apparently exculpatory | Not apparently exculpatory — Ambien would not negate elements or culpable mental state in DUI; voluntary ingestion and strict liability diminish exculpatory value | Potentially exculpatory — presence/quantification of Ambien could support involuntary-act or involuntary-intoxication theory | Presence of Ambien was not apparently exculpatory under the circumstances; it would not negate guilt for DUI/DUI-per-se |
| Whether defendant could obtain comparable evidence by other means | Comparable evidence (testimony, medical records) exists; defendant had notice and failed to act promptly | The blood sample was unique and necessary for quantification; other evidence insufficient | Comparable evidence existed (e.g., testimony about taking Ambien); defendant failed to secure testing in time; uniqueness of sample did not create a constitutional duty here |
| Whether dismissal was appropriate remedy for destruction | Dismissal was excessive because no due-process violation; other remedies or proceeding are proper | Dismissal warranted because loss irremediably prejudiced defense and made trial fundamentally unfair | Dismissal reversed; court held lesser remedy/unjustified to dismiss where no constitutional violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999) (establishes due-process framework for destroyed evidence and duty to preserve)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (evidence must be apparently exculpatory and irreplaceable to trigger constitutional duty)
- State v. Merriman, 410 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 2013) (de novo review of dismissal for destroyed evidence; scope of factual review)
- State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010) (blood drawn for limited alcohol testing may not require preservation for secondary drug testing)
- State v. Kain, 24 S.W.3d 816 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (voluntary ingestion of prescription drug + alcohol cannot support involuntary-intoxication defense)