Bill Neal Robison, II v The State Of Oklahoma
F 2006-443
Filed: May 15, 2008
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Bill Neal Robison, II
Summary
Bill Neal Robison, II, appealed his conviction for causing an accident that resulted in a serious injury while driving under the influence of alcohol. His conviction and sentence were for five years in prison and a $5000 fine. Judge Ray C. Elliott presided over the case. Robison's main argument was that the trial court wrongly allowed blood test results from the hospital to be used against him. He said these results were not taken according to the law and should not have been admitted as evidence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with him. They found that the test results were not reliable and that admitting them was a significant error. Because this was a big deal, they decided to grant Robison a new trial. There was a dissenting opinion from Judge Lumpkin, who believed that the blood test results from the hospital should still be considered valid evidence. In summary: Robison appealed his conviction for causing an accident with great injury while drunk driving. The court reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial. Judge Lumpkin dissented.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court shall be REVERSED and this case shall REMANDED for a NEW TRIAL. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there prejudicial error in the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to suppress the results of the emergency room blood test?
- Did the defense counsel fail to provide constitutionally effective representation?
Findings
- the court erred in denying the motion to suppress the emergency room blood test results
- the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rendered moot due to the reversal and remand for a new trial
F 2006-443
May 15, 2008
Bill Neal Robison, II
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
Bill Neal Robison, II, was convicted of causing an accident involving great bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of 47 O.S.2001, 11-904(B)(1), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2003-5234, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. The jury assessed the maximum punishment, five (5) years imprisonment and a $5000 fine; the trial court sentenced accordingly. Robison has perfected an appeal of the District Court’s Judgment and Sentence raising the following propositions of error:
1. It was prejudicial error for the trial court to deny Appellant’s motion to suppress the results of the emergency room blood test.
2. Defense counsel failed to provide constitutionally effective representation.
After thorough consideration of Robison’s propositions of error and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we have determined that the error alleged in proposition one has merit, which requires this Court to reverse the Judgment and Sentence and remand the case to the district court for a new trial.
In proposition one Robison claims that the results of lab testing on blood taken from him for medical purposes was inadmissible in his trial; we agree and find that counsel properly preserved this issue for review. In *Yell v. State*, 1993 OK CR 34, ¶ 10, 856 P.2d 996, 997, this Court held that only chemical tests approved and outlined in §§ 752-759 of Title 47 may be used to quantify alcohol levels. Here, the treating physician testified that the results of the hospital blood test showed an alcohol level of 180, which indicated, to him, a level of twice the legal limit. However, there was no testimony that this test was a test outlined by statute and approved by the Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence. See 47 O.S.Supp.2007, § 759. We find that the admission of this test result, and the doctor’s attempt to quantify the test result was in error.
We further find that the result of this test provided significant evidence in this case, so that we cannot say that the admission of this test was harmless. Furthermore, in addition to not being an approved test, the State wholly failed to show that the results of this test were reliable because they failed to show an adequate chain of custody and failed to show that the testing procedure was grounded in the methods and procedures of science[, ] derived by the scientific method [and] supported by appropriate validation. See *Taylor v. State*, 1995 OK CR 10, ¶ 17, 889 P.2d 319, 329-30, quoting *Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals*, 509 U.S. 579, 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2795, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Thus, we order that Robison be granted a new trial.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court shall be REVERSED and this case shall REMANDED for a NEW TRIAL. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
FRANK KIRK
1330 CLASSEN BLVD.
SUITE 302
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
STEVE DEUTCH
OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL
DONALD D. SELF
OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY
320 ROBERT S. KERR AVE.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
DOUG FRIESEN
1390 NORTH SHARTEL AVE.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73106
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
W. A. DREW EDMONDSON
GRAM GUHL
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
313 N.E. 21 ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: LEWIS, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: Dissent
C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concur
CHAPEL, J.: Concur
A. JOHNSON, J.: Concur in Results
As we are reversing Robison’s conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial, Robison’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim becomes moot.
Footnotes:
- 1 See Yell v. State, 1993 OK CR 34, 1 10, 856 P.2d 996, 997.
- 2 See 47 O.S.Supp.2007, § 759.
- 1 See also Allen v. State, 1978 OK CR 122, 1 6, 585 P.2d 1390, 1391.
- 2 See Weatherford v. State, 1976 OK CR 107, 1 9, 549 P.2d 1221, 1223.
- 2 See Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10, 1 17, 889 P.2d 319, 329-30.
- 3 See Yell, 1993 OK CR 34, I 12, 856 P.2d at 997.
- 3 As we are reversing Robison's conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial, Robison's ineffective assistance of counsel claim becomes moot.
- 2 See 47 O.S. 2001, § 759(B).
- 3 See 47 O.S.2001, § 757.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 11-904(B)(1) - Accident involving great bodily injury while driving under the influence
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 752 - Chemical tests for alcohol
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 759 - Testing procedures for alcohol and drug influence
- Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 757 - Introduction of competent evidence
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
No US Code citations found.
Other citations:
No other rule citations found.
Case citations:
- Yell v. State, 1993 OK CR 34, 1 10, 856 P.2d 996, 997
- Allen v. State, 1978 OK CR 122, I 6, 585 P.2d 1390, 1391
- Weatherford v. State, 1976 OK CR 107, I 9, 549 P.2d 1221, 1223
- Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10, I 17, 889 P.2d 319, 329-30