State v. CorriganState v. Corrigan
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Connell
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of
The defendant raises the following claims in her brief. First, she claims that the trial court improperly admitted blood alcohol content (BAC) evidence because the blood sample was not drawn at a hospital as required by
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. On May 21, 1992, the defendant consumed at least five alcoholic beverages at a restaurant in Stonington and left the restaurant operating her own car. While driving toward Mystic, the defendant was involved in a head-on collision with a car occupied by Charles Rice and Mara-beth Rice. As a result of the accident, Charles Rice was seriously injured and hospitalized for twelve days. Mara-beth Rice died from the injuries she received in the crash.
The defendant also sustained injuries and was transported to a hospital by ambulance. En route to the hospital, an emergency medical technician drew blood from the defendant. He gave the vials containing the blood to a laboratory technician at the hospital. The blood was tested and revealed a BAC of 0.26 percent. The BAC evidence was admitted at trial over the defendant’s objection.
I
The defendant first claims that the BAC evidence was inadmissible under General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 14-*362227a (l) because the blood sample was not drawn at a hospital. We agree.
At the time of the offense
The state argues that we should, as the trial court did, construe the phrase “at a hospital” to include those tests taken while en route to a hospital. When construing a statute, we seek to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. Dos Santos v. F. D. Rich Construction Co., 233 Conn. 14, 20, 58 A.2d 83 (1995). If the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we must assume that those words express this intention and we need inquire no further to construe the statute. State v. Mattioli, 210 Conn. 573, 576, 556 A.2d 584 (1989). When evaluating whether the words of the statute are plain and unambiguous, we give them their commonly approved meaning unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed.
Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that the phrase “at a hospital” is clear and unambiguous and refers exclusively to the physical confines of the building’s structure. The trial court therefore improperly construed the term “at a hospital” to include the blood sample drawn by emergency medical personnel en route to the hospital. The blood sample was not taken in accordance with the statute as it existed at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the BAC results were not admissible under
*363This interpretation is supported by the posttrial 1994 amendment to this section, which now includes the admission of blood tests taken “while en route to a hospital.” Public Acts 1994, No. 94-60 (P.A. 94-60). Unless a contrary legislative intent appears, we assume that the legislature intends to change existing law when it enacts new statutory language. Caron v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, 222 Conn. 269, 278, 610 A.2d 584 (1992). Here, we conclude that the amendment intended to permit BAG results from the tests taken en route to a hospital into evidence where such results were previously inadmissible.
The state argues that we cannot afford the defendant the relief she seeks because
The state’s argument fails to recognize the distinction between civil and criminal cases in determining whether statutes will be applied retroactively. “The rationale for this distinction is grounded in the principle that criminal statutes must be strictly construed . . . and hence, must be liberally construed in favor of the accused.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Paradise, 189 Conn. 346, 352, 456 A.2d 305 (1983). An amendment to a criminal statute will not be retroactively applied unless the language of the statute makes such a construction necessary. Id., 353. The language of the amendment at issue here does not evince a legislative intent that the statute be given retroactive application. There is no language that mandates a retrospective construction. State v. Jones, 132 Conn. 682, 47 A.2d 185 (1946). Because P.A. 94-60 contains no language mandating retroactive application, it is unnecessary to determine whether the amendment is substantive or procedural. State v. Paradise, supra, 353.
The civil-criminal distinction enunciated in State v. Jones, supra, 132 Conn. 684, and affirmed in State v. Paradise, supra, 189 Conn. 353, is not necessarily applicable to other areas of the criminal process. The Supreme Court *364expressly limited the civil-criminal distinction to matters involving statutory construction of criminal statutes. State v. Paradise, supra, 353 n.5. Thus, the state’s reliance on Almeda is misplaced because Almeda’s holding does not involve the construction of a criminal statute.
We need not reach the defendant’s claim that the blood sample was improperly admitted into evidence because it was not taken by a person authorized by statute because we have already determined that the evidence is inadmissible under
n
We next consider whether the BAC evidence was admissible to show that the defendant was under the influence of liquor to prove the manslaughter and assault charges. Our case law is clear that the limitations on the admissibility of blood evidence under
Ill
Having concluded that the BAC evidence is admissible for prosecutions for the vehicular offenses defined by the penal code, we must now address the defendant’s claim that the BAC must be related to the time of the offense in order to be admitted into evidence.
This court has previously held that extrapolation evidence is not required to prove vehicular assault because that crime is not committed, per se, by having a certain BAC.
The defendant concedes that Connecticut case law does not support her position, but urges us to reconsider our previous holdings. We are not persuaded that our case law should be changed.
IV
Finally, we turn to the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly allowed the state’s toxicologist to testify despite the state’s failure to include his name on a witness list.
Pursuant to
“The purpose of criminal discoveiy is to prevent surprise and to afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial. To achieve these goals and to assure compliance with the rules, the trial court must impose an appropriate sanction for failure to comply. In determining what sanction is appropriate, the trial court should consider the reason why disclosure was not made, the extent of prejudice, if any, to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance, and any *366other relevant circumstances.” State v. Festo, 181 Conn. 254, 265, 435 A.2d 38 (1980).
The trial court has discretion in determining what sanctions, if any, are appropriate for failure to comply with court ordered discovery. State v. Perez, 181 Conn. 299, 310, 435 A.2d 334 (1980). At the time of trial,
The judgment is reversed only as to the conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and the case is remanded for a new trial on that charge.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
General Statutes § 1 l-227a (a) provides inpertinentpart: “No person shall operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both. Apeison commits the offense ol‘operating amolor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both if he operates a motor vehicle ... (1) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both or (2) while *362the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.”
“(1) Requiring the prosecuting authority to comply;
“(2) Granting the defendant additional time or a continuance;
“(3) Relieving the defendant from making a disclosure required by Sec. 756, prohibiting the prosecuting authority from introducing specified evidence, or dismissing the charges; or
“(4) Entering such other order as he deems proper.”