Blood-test result; Implied-consent statute; MCL 257.625a(6)(c); People v Callon; Foundational requirement; People v Cords; Cords test

Rejecting defendant’s “claim that he was entitled to a new trial because his blood-test result should have been suppressed[,]” the court affirmed. He first argued “that the trial court erred by admitting his blood-test result at trial because his blood draw did not comply with the requirements of MCL 257.625a(6)(c).” But his “blood was drawn pursuant to a warrant. ‘Therefore, MCL 257.625a(6)(c), the implied-consent statute, does not govern admissibility of the test results.’” Thus, the trial court correctly concluded that MCL 257.625a(6)(c) was inapplicable. As a result, “the rules of evidence, as limited by constitutional principles, govern the admissibility of blood-test results obtained under a search warrant.” The court found that similar “to Callon, because defendant ‘does not argue that the search warrant was unsupported by probable cause or otherwise suffered from a constitutional deficiency, and because the alleged deviations from MCL 257.625a(6)(c) do not implicate the relevancy or reliability of the blood-test results, exclusion of the evidence was not required[]’ on this basis.” Defendant alternatively argued “that his blood-draw result should not have been admitted at trial because the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for its admission.” He challenged “only the second and third requirements of the Cords test.” Defendant argued “that, because the laboratory technician did not specifically recall taking a sample of defendant’s blood and did not recognize him at trial, the second requirement is not satisfied. Although the laboratory technician did not recall taking a sample of defendant’s blood, she identified her signature and printed name on the form linked to defendant’s blood sample, which contained defendant’s name and identifying information. She also identified the numbers on the form, ‘03-38,’ as the time she took the blood sample.” Her documentation was “consistent with a trooper who testified at trial that he arrested defendant and took him to the Mackinac Straits Hospital for a blood draw, where the laboratory technician worked. In light of this evidence, the prosecution sufficiently established that the blood drawn and analyzed belonged to defendant.” As to the third requirement, the record showed “that the prosecution established that the laboratory technician was authorized to take a sample from defendant. The laboratory technician testified that she had 22 years of experience, routinely performed blood draws pursuant to search warrants, and that a pathologist in Marquette oversaw her operations.” The court noted that although “not physically present at the hospital when the laboratory technician drew defendant’s blood, the pathologist still oversaw what the laboratory technician did in the hospital. Accordingly, the prosecution laid a proper foundation for the evidence of defendant’s blood-test results.”