457 P.3d 1093
Okla. Crim. App.2020Background:
- Jessen Hodges was charged with misdemeanor manslaughter in Grant County (alternative theories: DUI or reckless driving).
- After the crash Hodges was transported to Kansas for emergency care; Kansas Highway Patrol personnel drew his blood at the request of Oklahoma officers.
- Oklahoma Board of Tests rules (and related statutes) require specific procedures (e.g., written consent, certified personnel, kit requirements, number of vials) for blood draws to be admissible in Oklahoma DUI prosecutions; those Oklahoma procedures were not followed.
- The district court granted Hodges’s motion to suppress the blood-test results; the State appealed under 22 O.S. § 1053(5).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Oklahoma law governs admissibility in Oklahoma prosecutions but remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the Kansas draw complied with Kansas law and therefore constitutes "other competent evidence" under 47 O.S. § 757.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board-of-Tests rule (OAC 40:20-1-3(C)) and related statutes violate separation of powers by dictating admissible DUI evidence | The Board rules improperly tell the judiciary what evidence is competent; delegation is unconstitutional | Legislature may prescribe rules for technical scientific matters and may delegate to the Board | Rejected: delegation to the Board is constitutional and consistent with prior authority; Proposition I denied |
| Whether a Kansas trooper must follow Oklahoma law when drawing blood in Kansas at Oklahoma's request | State contended Oklahoma standards should govern and evidence should be admitted because Kansas trooper followed Kansas procedures | Hodges argued Oklahoma Board rules were not followed and so Oklahoma test-admissibility requirements were unmet | Court: question framed incorrectly — admissibility in Oklahoma is governed by Oklahoma law, but out-of-state tests may be admissible under § 757 if they are competent under the other state’s law; remand to determine Kansas-law admissibility |
| Whether blood drawn in Kansas (not in compliance with Oklahoma Board rules) is nonetheless admissible in Oklahoma | State argued comparability or practical necessity should allow admission because Kansas procedures were followed | Hodges argued noncompliance with Oklahoma Board rules required suppression | Court: Oklahoma law controls admissibility; however § 757 permits admission of "other competent evidence" from another jurisdiction if it would be admissible there; remand for factual/legal determination under Kansas law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hovet, 387 P.3d 951 (2016) (explains requirement that collection and analysis comply with Board rules before Oklahoma admission)
- Synnott v. State, 515 P.2d 1154 (1973) (upholds delegation of technical rulemaking to Board of Tests)
- Westerman v. State, 525 P.2d 1359 (1974) (approves statutory scheme assigning Board rulemaking authority)
- Harris v. State, 773 P.2d 1273 (1989) (discussed in relation to prior precedents and scope of delegation)
- Bench v. State, 431 P.3d 929 (2018) (illustrates trial-court authority for pretrial admissibility rulings)
- Terry v. State, 334 P.3d 953 (2014) (example of pretrial admissibility determination)
- Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319 (1995) (discusses expert-evidence and admissibility considerations)
Decision: Reverse grant of suppression; remand for determination whether Kansas blood draw complied with Kansas law and would be admissible there, so it may be considered "other competent evidence" under 47 O.S. § 757.