Whitaker v. State
2014 Miss. LEXIS 321
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Whitaker was involved in a Warren County, Mississippi, car collision; he was unconscious at the scene and later tested for alcohol.
- He was charged with aggravated driving under the influence under Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(5) and sentenced to 25 years with restitution.
- A blood sample was drawn at River Region Medical Center pursuant to a search warrant after Sergeant Bailess observed alcohol odor and Whitaker’s unconsciousness.
- The blood sample was labeled with an incorrect case number due to local case-numbering practices, then corrected; it remained in evidence until lab testing.
- The Mississippi Crime Laboratory tested the sample, finding an ethyl alcohol concentration of 0.18; the sample was disposed of after testing.
- Whitaker moved to suppress and compel production of the blood sample; the lab later indicated destruction prior to the motion hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied Consent Act admissibility challenge | Whitaker argues Act privileges apply and were violated | State contends warrant-based collection falls outside Act protections | Ineffective challenge; moot since blood not taken under Implied Consent Act |
| Chain of custody integrity | Labeling error shows potential tampering | Regularity of official acts preserves custody; labeling correction adequate | Sufficient chain of custody; no demonstrated tampering |
| Authentication and identification under Rule 901 | State failed to authenticate/identify the blood sample | Testimony of Bailess, Winchester, and Lockey established authentication | Properly authenticated; adequate foundation established |
| Section 63-11-9 procedure for unconscious persons | State failed to follow Section 63-11-9 drawing procedures for unconscious | Blood obtained via warrant; Section 63-11-9 not controlling | Inapplicable; warrant-based collection renders this issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitehurst v. State, 540 So.2d 1319 (Miss. 1989) (Rules of Evidence supersede statutory privileges)
- Deeds v. State, 27 So.3d 1135 (Miss. 2009) (Rules of Evidence trump statutory limitations on admissibility)
- Ellis v. State, 934 So.2d 1000 (Miss. 2006) (Chain-of-custody witness sufficiency; regularity presumption)
- Harness v. State, 58 So.3d 1 (Miss. 2011) (Destruction of blood sample; due process and preservation duty)
- Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss. 1972) (Right to reasonable opportunity for independent blood testing)
- Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368 (Miss. 1987) (Preservation of evidence duty and due process considerations)
- Whitehurst v. State, 540 So.2d 1319 (Miss. 1989) (Implied Consent Act vs. Rules of Evidence interaction)