State v. Eagleman
1 CA-CR 15-0804
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- On Aug. 5, 2013, police pursued a white pickup after reports of occupants throwing beer; the truck crashed into a tree and the driver (Eagleman) was found in the driver’s seat.
- Officer observed signs of intoxication (strong alcohol odor, bloodshot/watery eyes, poor balance) and several empty beer cans in the vehicle.
- Eagleman was transported to the hospital for treatment; a phlebotomist drew blood for medical reasons in the presence of Officer Barlow, who sealed a sample that later tested .299 BAC.
- Eagleman’s driver’s license had been revoked since 1999; MVD records and mailings supported the revocation.
- A jury convicted Eagleman of two counts of aggravated DUI (while license suspended): driving under the influence and BAC > .08; he stipulated to three prior felonies and received concurrent 10-year terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for blood draw | State: officer observed crash, indicia of intoxication, so probable cause existed | Eagleman: no probable cause at time of medical blood draw | Held: Probable cause existed given crash, empty cans, odor, and impairment signs; blood lawfully obtained under A.R.S. § 28-1388(E). |
| Physician–patient privilege | State: privilege does not cover phlebotomists and evidence tested at crime lab | Eagleman: blood draw/test violated physician–patient privilege | Held: Privilege inapplicable to medical technician or subsequent crime-lab testing; no privilege violation. |
| Confrontation rights re: grand jury | State: grand jury proceedings do not afford cross-examination; confrontation clause applies at trial | Eagleman: inability to cross-examine grand jury witnesses violated Sixth Amendment | Held: No violation; confrontation clause applies at trial, not grand jury. |
| Vagueness of A.R.S. § 28-1388(E) | State: statute clearly permits police to obtain medical blood samples with probable cause | Eagleman: statute vague—"if requested" unclear and officer merely present in trauma room | Held: Statute is not unconstitutionally vague; officer’s provision of vials constituted a request. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel to file a no-merit brief on appeal)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (appellate review obligations when counsel finds no arguable issues)
- State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999) (court-directed record search for reversible error)
- State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287 (App. 2004) (police may receive medical blood samples when probable cause exists)
- Benton v. Superior Court in & for Cty. of Navajo, 182 Ariz. 466 (App. 1994) (physician–patient privilege does not extend to medical technicians)
- State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147 (2006) (confrontation clause applies to trials, not grand jury proceedings)
- State v. McMahon, 201 Ariz. 548 (App. 2002) (vagueness standard for statutes requires sufficiently explicit instructions)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (appellate counsel’s post-decision duties and defendant’s right to seek review)