Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
Where appellant was found guilty of aggravated involuntary manslaughter after he crashed his car into a tree, killing his passenger, the results of his blood alcohol tests at the hospital were properly admitted into evidence despite his chain of custody arguments.
Further there was sufficient evidence to establish the three elements of his offense: that he drove while intoxicated, and, as a result caused the death of another, and that his conduct was criminally negligent – “so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life.”
Admissible evidence
Appellant “Snead argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the blood alcohol results contained in his hospital records because there was insufficient evidence presented on the chain of custody of the blood test and therefore the evidence was unreliable. We disagree. …
“[T]he trial court found that the blood test results were reliable, noting that Snead’s health care providers had relied on them to treat him. …
“‘[T]here is good reason to treat a hospital record entry as trustworthy.’ Thomas v. Hogan, 308 F.2d 355, 361 (4th Cir. 1962). The court stressed that ‘[h]uman life will often depend on the accuracy of the entry,’ and held that ‘it is reasonable to presume that a hospital is staffed with personnel who competently perform their day-to-day tasks.’ …
“Accordingly, the court held that ‘hospital records are deserving of a presumption of accuracy even more than other types of business entries.’ …
“The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Snead’s blood test results and hospital records without further chain of custody foundation.”
Expert testimony
“Snead next contends that Dr. Wright’s opinion [that Snead’s blood alcohol level affected his ability to drive] was too speculative to be admissible because the blood test results were unreliable due to the lack of chain of custody evidence. We disagree. …
“[T]he blood tests upon which Dr. Wright’s opinion rested were properly admitted into evidence. Thus, to the extent Snead argues that Dr. Wright’s opinion testimony was inadmissible based on chain of custody concerns, those challenges go to the weight of her opinion, not its admissibility. …
“Snead attempted to impeach Dr. Wright’s opinion on this basis when he questioned both Dr. Wright and the custodian of the hospital records about their lack of knowledge on chain of custody issues, but he produced no evidence suggesting that the analysis of the BAC [blood alcohol concentration] in his blood samples was flawed or that any drugs he received altered his BAC readings.
“Dr. Wright’s opinion was based on assumptions that were either supported by the evidence or uncontested. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Dr. Wright’s opinion testimony.”
Sufficient evidence
“The evidence demonstrated that Snead was intoxicated at the time of the accident with a ‘high’ BAC of approximately 0.2. Dr. Wright’s testimony and [Snead’s] BAC supported a rational inference that he consumed a significant number of alcoholic beverages before driving.
“No evidence indicated that Snead consumed any alcohol after the accident. Indeed, he was unconscious when Allen and Conard [who lived near the crash scene] found him ‘two minutes’ after the accident, and they remained with him until emergency personnel arrived.
“Although Snead speculates that his BAC test could have been compromised by the drugs administered to him after the accident, he cites no evidence supporting that theory. …
“The record also supported the trial court’s finding that Snead’s alcohol-intoxicated driving caused Adams’s death. The tire tracks in the snow demonstrated that Snead made no attempt to correct his path or brake after leaving the road, despite the presence of a road sign marking the curve.
“Based on the extensive damage to the front of the car and the straight path from the road to the tree, the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Snead drove directly into the tree at a high rate of speed.
“Dr. Wright testified that a BAC of 0.2 would interfere with a driver’s ‘judgment’ and reaction time as well as his ability to judge speed and his ability to stay in his lane of travel. Accordingly, the record was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, ‘as a result of driving under the influence [of alcohol],’ Snead caused Adams’s death. …
“The evidence was also sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Snead was criminally negligent. …
“This Court has held that driving with a BAC of more than 0.25, standing alone, constitutes ‘a willful act’ sufficiently ‘gross, wanton, and culpable’ to prove a violation of Code § 18.2-36.1(B). …
“[W]e do not decide whether driving with a BAC of 0.2 is sufficient, standing alone, to establish the ‘gross, wanton, and culpable’ conduct required to prove aggravated involuntary manslaughter.
“However, we do find … the BAC evidence proved that Snead’s level of intoxication was two and one-half times the legal limit, and therefore Snead was substantially impaired by alcohol.
“The evidence also supported the trial court’s finding that as a result of the level of intoxication Snead did not conform his driving to the weather and road conditions.
“The evidence proved that, while he was extremely intoxicated, Snead chose to drive a curvy, dangerous road when the road and visibility conditions were poor. He failed to heed the road signs marking the curve, and instead, drove straight off the road at a high rate of speed directly into a tree. Viewed as a whole and in combination, the circumstances here were sufficient to support the reasonable conclusion that Snead was criminally negligent[.]”
Affirmed.
Snead v. Commonwealth. Record No. 0044-22-3, March 7, 2023. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Athey Jr.). From the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County (Moreau). Joseph A. Sanzone for appellant. William K. Hamilton, Jason S. Miyares for appellee. VLW 023-7-106, 12 pp.
