Court Rules Blood Evidence Report not Necessary for Trial

Image related with this article: Court Rules Blood Evidence Report not Necessary for Trial
This case discusses the issue of blood evidence lost and whether the trial can proceed without the evidence.

This is the case of State of Alabama v. Karen Stafford from Jefferson County, Alabama. Karen Stafford was indicted for the charge of 1st degree assault. The state alleged that Stafford while driving northbound in the southbound Lane struck an individual's vehicle causing him severe physical injury. Stafford's blood sample was drawn pursuant to a search warrant by Homewood Police Department.

Testing of the sample by the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences determined by blood alcohol content level of .15 about twice the legal limit. Stafford was arrested in June, 2017. In April, 2018, Stafford filed a motion to preserve evidence collected and to suppress the blood sample.

In October 2019, the prosecutor stated that he had discovered that the blood sample kit sent to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences was destroyed after the two year holding period, but photographs of the kit and the case file were available. Stafford move to either exclude any evidence regarding the blood tests or to dismiss the Indictment. After hearing the trial court dismissed the Indictment against Stafford.

The state appealed the dismissal of the Indictment and the appellate court reversed. The appellate court used the three prong test of Gurley vs. State of Alabama, which required it to review a claim of loss or destruction of evidence by weighing the culpability of the state for the loss of the evidence, the materiality of the lost evidence, and the prejudice to the accused. As to the culpability of the state the court found that the record did not show any evidence of bad faith by the state.

Rather, the state appeared to have been negligent in not preserving their requested blood sample. The court likewise did not find the Alabama Department of Forensic Science blood sample to be material to Stafford's defense. The blood sample was not exculpatory. The court added that the photographs produced to Stafford showing the expiration date of the kit were material and that Stafford could use those to challenge the integrity of the test results at trial.

As to prejudice, the court found that the blood sample itself was no longer available apply. Applying the three part balancing test articulated in Gurley The Alabama Department of Forensic Science blood sample was simply not critical to Stafford's defense at trial. The trial court erred in dismissing the Indictment the court and held that the trial court erred in imposing the extreme sanction of dismissing the Indictment as a discovery section.

articles

latest news & insights

1 / 9
David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

In a case that made its way to the highest level of the state court system, the Alabama Supreme Court recently presided over an appeal beginning in Walker County. This case, Ex parte David Eugene Files, centers around a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. Files’ petition was dismissed by the Walker circuit court, with the dismissal being affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

read articles
Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

In a decision that affirms the admissibility and sufficiency of several distinct types of evidence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently presided over an appeal that found its roots in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

read articles
Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

How courts divide real property in a divorce. Learn more from Ingram Law, LLC.

read articles
Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

In a case that demonstrates the limits of alimony awards, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard the case of Larry Shearry v. Christy Spivey, as personal representative of the Estate of Charlotte Shearry.

read articles
Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

You are driving home late between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. You get pulled over because the police officer states you are driving over the line, driving too slow, have a head light out or you have a taillight out.

read articles
latest-news

The Crime of Stalking in Alabama

Another category of criminal offense in Alabama is stalking. Covered by Article 5, stalking includes offenses for stalking in the first and second degree, aggravated stalking in the first and second degree, and electronic stalking in the first and second degree.

read articles
Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

In a case that demonstrates the intricacies of equitable division of marital property, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently presided over an appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court in Jefferson County. The case of Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown illustrates the importance of maintaining a clear record on appeal and emphasizes the necessity of full disclosure when dividing marital assets.

read articles
Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

In a case illustrating the tumultuous and complicated proceedings for challenging a death sentence, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard the appeal of Brett Richard Yeiter v. State of Alabama, stemming from Escambia County. Yeiter’s case underscores the critical need to adhere to procedural requirements, especially in cases involving severe sentences.

read articles
latest-news

Trademark Infringement: Causes of Action Under the Lanham Act

Federal trademark law is primarily governed by the Lanham Trademark Act, also referred to as the Trademark Act of 1946. The Lanham Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. §§1051 to 1127, covers a wide range of trademark issues including registration, maintenance, protection, and the creation of a federal cause of action for trademark infringement.

read articles

schedule a consultation

Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo
Joe Ingram Law Logo

Your path to get the right compensation starts here.