State v. Baze, 2011 MT 52

Baze was involved in a March 15, 2004 single-car rollover on I-94 near Forsyth, Montana, and was taken to RHCC for treatment.
Trooper Downs interviewed Baze at RHCC and issued DUI-related citations after Baze refused a breath test and was not arrested due to ongoing medical treatment.
Blood samples were drawn at RHCC by Margo Anderson and sent to Deaconess Billings Clinic (Billings Clinic) for testing, with results faxed back to RHCC as 0.328 BAC.
The faxed toxicology report was incorporated into RHCC medical records, but no witness testified about the blood handling, transfer, or testing at Billings Clinic.
Baze moved to suppress or obtain chain-of-custody evidence; the district court denied suppression, admitting the faxed report under MR Evid. 803(6) business records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the faxed BAC report was admissible under MR Evid. 803(6).	Baze contends no proper business-record foundation existed.	State argues records were kept in the regular course of business and admissible.	District court abused discretion; 803(6) not satisfied; reversed and remanded.

State v. Fregien, 331 Mont. 18, 127 P.3d 1048 (Mont. 2006) (blood-test admissibility in DUI through medical records with proper foundation)
State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231, 941 P.2d 441 (Mont. 1997) (medical records protected; statutory and evidentiary considerations)
State v. Newill, 285 Mont. 84, 946 P.2d 134 (Mont. 1997) (defining admissibility requirements for DUI blood evidence)
State v. McDonald, 215 Mont. 340, 697 P.2d 1328 (Mont. 1985) (policies governing admissibility of blood test evidence)
United States v. Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (expanded 803(6) foundations accepted in some circuits; rejected for Montana)
United States v. Ray, 920 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1990) (foundational elements for 803(6) records in federal context)