Chemical Test Archives - OCCA Opinions

F 2006-443

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 15, 2008
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2006-443, Bill Neal Robison, II, appealed his conviction for causing an accident involving great bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. A judge dissented. Robison was found guilty in a trial that took place in Oklahoma County. The jury decided he should serve five years in prison and pay a fine of $5000. He appealed on two main points. First, he argued that the results of a blood test from the hospital should not have been used against him in court. Second, he claimed that his lawyer did not represent him properly. The court looked closely at Robison's first point and agreed that the blood test should not have been included as evidence. The test was done for medical reasons, and the court noted that it was not one of the specific tests approved for measuring alcohol levels under the law. The treating doctor testified that Robison's blood alcohol level was very high, but because the test did not follow the right rules, it could not be trusted as evidence in the trial. Since this test result was important for the case, the court could not ignore the mistake, which led them to reverse his conviction. They decided that Robison should have a new trial where this evidence would not be used against him. The second argument about the lawyer's performance was not needed since the court ordered a new trial. The final decision meant that Robison would go back to court for a fresh trial without the improper blood test evidence. The judges' opinions on the new trial varied, with one judge expressing disagreement with reversing the conviction based on the blood test's results.

M-2004-66

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 5, 2005
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-66, Foy Anthony Boyd appealed his conviction for Driving While Impaired (DWI). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Boyd’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Boyd was convicted in the District Court of Coal County after a jury trial. He was sentenced to pay court costs and a fine because he was found guilty of DWI. Boyd argued that he should not have been convicted because he believed the results of his breath test should not have been used as evidence. He claimed that the rules about how the breath test should be given were not followed, so the results were not valid. The state, which was against Boyd in the case, argued that they did not make a mistake and that there was enough evidence to convict him without the breath test results. However, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that all rules were followed when giving the breath test. The state did not show what the relevant rules were or that the officers followed them properly. Boyd presented evidence showing that the breath test was not conducted according to the rules that the Board had in place. The state just had officers say they believed the rules were followed without providing the actual rules or clearing up the concerns about them. The court decided that this was a significant error. Even though officers testified that Boyd showed signs of being impaired before the breath test was done, the court concluded that the use of the test in the trial was a violation of Boyd's rights. Since the state didn't prove that the breath test was done correctly, the court believed Boyd deserved a new trial. Boyd asked for his conviction to be completely dismissed. However, the court felt that it was fairer to allow the state to have another chance to present the case with proper evidence. If the state could show that the breath test was given correctly in the retrial, they could use those results against Boyd. The court ordered that Boyd's conviction be overturned and that the case be sent back for a new trial where the state could fix the issues with the evidence. In the dissenting opinion, the judge believed that the evidence supporting Boyd’s conviction was strong enough even without the breath test. This judge pointed out that the officers had seen signs of intoxication in Boyd, like the smell of alcohol, his bloodshot eyes, and his poor performance on sobriety tests. The judge argued that Boyd's guilty verdict should stand since traditional signs of impairment by officers could be enough for a conviction.