339 P.3d 983
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Goggin appeals a felony DUI conviction following a blood test taken about three hours after arrest via a search warrant.
- Officer Marcus read implied-consent warnings for breath but not for blood after the warrant; Goggin previously refused a breath test.
- The blood draw was conducted under a warrant, not under RCW 46.20.308(3), raising the issue of whether Goggin was entitled to an independent test advisement.
- The State sought to admit four prior Idaho DUI judgments as the basis for a fourth DUI conviction; Goggin objected on confrontation grounds.
- At trial, the State elicited testimony and documentary evidence to prove Goggin’s identity with the Idaho judgment, including police and booking information.
- The court admitted the Idaho judgment as a non-testimonial, self-authenticating public record and denied a Idaho-witness requirement; Goggin was convicted of felony DUI and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of blood test results | Goggin argues failure to rewarn on additional tests after warrant. | Goggin contends statute required advisement after warrant. | Admissible; warrant-sourced test does not require rewarning; harmless error. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for four prior DUIs | Idaho conviction shown by certified Idaho judgment. | Need independent proof linking Goggin to Idaho arrest. | Sufficient; independent identifiers (photographs) linked Goggin to Idaho judgment. |
| Confrontation rights with Idaho judgment | Admission violates confrontation by lacking witness on Idaho judgment. | Washington Constitution requires face-to-face confrontation; Gunwall analysis. | Not violated; Idaho judgment treated as non-testimonial public record under applicable law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dempsey, 88 Wn. App. 918 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; factual findings sufficiency review)
- State v. Turpin, 94 Wn.2d 820 (Wash. 1980) (mandatory test provisions; distinguishable from warrant-based test)
- State v. St. John, 166 Wn.2d 941 (Wash. 2009) (RCW 46.20.308(1) allows warrants independent of implied consent for blood tests)
- State v. Pugh, 167 Wn.2d 825 (Wash. 2009) (an independent analysis of Washington confrontation rights; Gunwall not required for this issue)
- State v. Benefiel, 131 Wn. App. 651 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (judgment/sentence not testimonial; proper under confrontation analysis)