State v. C. Harrison
2017 MT 60
Mont.2017Background
- Harrison was stopped for driving without headlights, showed strong signs of intoxication on field sobriety tests, refused a preliminary breath test, and was arrested.
- Officer obtained a telephonic warrant under the implied-consent/search-warrant statutes and transported Harrison to the hospital for a court-ordered blood draw; cuffs were removed for the procedure.
- While the officer completed paperwork, Harrison fled the hospital and was not located until the next day, preventing the blood draw.
- State charged Harrison with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence (§ 45-7-207, MCA) based on her preventing collection of blood; she was convicted by a jury.
- Harrison moved to dismiss arguing blood in the body is not "physical evidence" under State v. Peplow; the District Court denied the motion and the conviction was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether blood inside a person is "physical evidence" subject to tampering under § 45-7-207, MCA | Peplow controls: blood in the body is not "physical evidence" until collected for analysis | State: Peplow is limited or superseded by statutory changes permitting warrants to seize blood samples | Court reversed conviction: Peplow is dispositive; blood inside the body is not "physical evidence" for tampering until obtained/collected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peplow, 36 P.3d 922 (Mont. 2001) (held that blood while still in the body is not "physical evidence" for tampering; evidence requires a sample capable of analysis)
- State v. Nelson, 334 P.3d 345 (Mont. 2014) (standard: de novo review of district court dismissals based on statutory interpretation)
- State v. Plouffe, 329 P.3d 1255 (Mont. 2014) (statutory-construction principle: specific provisions prevail over general ones)
- State v. Clary, 2 P.3d 1255 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000) (discusses search warrants authorizing blood draws and execution by reasonable force)