269 P.3d 263
Wash.2012Background
- Morales was arrested for vehicular assault and subjected to a mandatory blood alcohol test under RCW 46.20.308(3).
- Before the blood draw, Trooper Brunstad had a hospital interpreter read the 308 warning to Morales in Spanish, but Brunstad could not verify it was read and no signed notice was admitted.
- The interpreter was not called to testify at trial, and no independent form of the 308 notice was admitted into evidence.
- Morales had Miranda rights administered in English; an interpreter aided the communication during the DUI/vehicular assault proceedings.
- The State admitted Morales’ blood test results despite contesting whether the 308 warning was properly given, and trial ultimately relied on the results in several verdicts.
- On appeal, Morales challenged the admissibility of the blood test and the validity of the 308 warning, leading to questions about statutory versus constitutional grounds and potential remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Morales informed of the 308 independent-testing right? | Morales | Morales argues failure to prove 308 warning read | No adequate proof the 308 warning was read |
| Does RCW 46.20.308(2) 308 warning apply to vehicular assault suspects under (3)? | State | Morales | Yes; 308 warning applies to vehicular assault suspects |
| If the 308 warning was not read, is the blood test admissible? | State | Morales | Blood test admitted in error; must be excluded or lead to reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Turpin, 94 Wn.2d 820 (1980) (failure to inform of 308 warning requires remedy and exclusion)
- State v. Carranza, 24 Wn. App. 311 (1979) (error in 308 warning; dissent cited on independent testing)
- State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29 (1987) (due process-like considerations and right to evidence gathering)
- State v. McNichols, 128 Wn.2d 242 (1995) (due process and access to independent testing in DUI cases)
- Whitman County Dist. Court, 105 Wn.2d 278 (1986) (preference for proper 308 notice; substantial compliance not enough)
- State v. Canaday, 90 Wn.2d 808 (1978) (context for statutory construction of implied consent)