No. 05-312
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 323N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROBERT DOYLE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Garfield, Cause No. DC 04-301,
Honorable Gary L. Day, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Roy W. Johnson, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Tammy K. Plubell,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Nickolas C. Murnion, County Attorney, Jordan, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 13, 2006
Decided: December 7, 2006
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the
State Reporter Publishing Company and West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable
cases issued by this Court.
¶2 Robert Doyle (Doyle) appeals from the ruling of the Sixteenth Judicial District
Court, Garfield County, denying his objection to the introduction of blood test results.
We affirm.
¶3 Doyle was charged with the offense of operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol
concentration of 0.08 or more, in violation of § 61-8-406, MCA. The District Court
conducted a bench trial on April 7, 2005. During Officer Downs’ testimony, Doyle
objected to Downs’ reference to the blood test results, arguing that because the State did
not call the nurse who withdrew the blood to verify that she was indeed a registered
nurse, it had failed to lay a proper foundation. Downs explained that he took Doyle to the
Garfield Community Health Center to have his blood drawn and testified that RN Lillian
Johnson (Nurse Johnson) withdrew the blood from Doyle, and that he observed Nurse
Johnson take Doyle’s blood in accordance with standard operating procedures.
¶4 The District Court concluded Officer Downs’ testimony sufficiently established
the foundational requirements for admitting the blood test results and overruled Doyle’s
2
objection. After the State presented its case-in-chief, Doyle changed his plea to guilty,
reserving the right to appeal the court’s ruling. This appeal results therefrom.
¶5 “The determination of the adequacy of foundation for the admission of evidence
is within the discretion of the trial court . . . .” State v. DuBray, 2003 MT 255, ¶ 74, 317
Mont. 377, ¶ 74, 77 P.3d 247, ¶ 74 (citing State v. Christenson, 250 Mont. 351, 359, 820
P.2d 1303, 1308 (1991)). We will not overturn such a determination “absent a clear
abuse of discretion.” DuBray, ¶ 74.
¶6 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003,
amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us
that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law, including State v.
Decker, 251 Mont. 339, 828 P.2d 1342 (1991), which the District Court correctly
interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District Court.
¶7 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JOHN WARNER
3
State v. Doyle
Combined Opinion