Background
After responding to a motorcycle crash, an officer found Terry Douglas Litts, II, near a motorcycle in a ditch and a broken traffic sign. The officer observed that Litts had a bloody face and muddy clothes, smelled intoxicants on his breath, and heard Litts say he had visited two bars and consumed about three White Claws.
Litts consented to a hospital blood draw after his arrest. The officer observed the draw, took the sealed blood kit to the police station, and placed it in an evidence locker. A state laboratory report showed a blood-ethanol concentration of 0.224 grams per 100 milliliters. The municipal court found Litts guilty of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration and operating while under the influence; the circuit court affirmed on transcript review.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the municipal court could credit the officer’s testimony that he observed the hospital blood draw and that it was performed by a medical technician or phlebotomist. The officer’s inability to recall the specific person who performed the draw, including that person’s hair color, did not make the finding clearly erroneous, and his testimony concerned his own observations rather than hearsay.
The court also held that the Town sufficiently established the blood sample’s chain of custody. Testimony about the sealed, labeled kit; police evidence-locker protocol; and the laboratory scientist’s inspection supported the finding that tampering was improbable. Finally, allowing the laboratory scientist to testify by telephone was within the municipal court’s discretion because Litts had the laboratory report, identified no unavailable documents, and was able to cross-examine the scientist effectively.
Key Takeaways
- A witness need not identify the precise medical professional who performed a hospital blood draw when credible testimony supports that an authorized professional did it.
- Chain-of-custody objections generally affect evidentiary weight when the record makes substitution, contamination, or tampering improbable.
- Telephonic expert testimony may be permitted in a municipal proceeding when it does not cause unfair surprise or impair effective cross-examination.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential review applied to municipal-court fact findings after a transcript-review appeal. Minor gaps in recollection or deviations from ordinary sealing practices did not overcome testimony supporting the blood evidence’s reliability.
It also distinguishes telephonic testimony that permits meaningful cross-examination from the unfair procedure addressed in Town of Geneva v. Tills, where the defense lacked access to documents used by the remote witness.