Background
Melinda Wingard was convicted by a jury of DUI, fourth or subsequent offense, after an officer stopped her vehicle while responding to a 911 report that she had left a disturbance while intoxicated. The officer observed fluctuating driving speeds, slurred and disorganized speech, bloodshot and watery eyes, and difficulty following directions. Wingard showed signs of intoxication during roadside testing and later consented to a hospital blood draw.
A Colorado Bureau of Investigation test reported a blood-alcohol content of 0.108 grams of ethanol per 100 milliliters, plus or minus 0.005. The trial court sentenced Wingard to six years of probation and 128 days in jail. On appeal, she challenged the admission of the BAC evidence, the court’s response to a deliberating jury’s BAC question, and the denial of mistrial and new-trial motions based on a witness’s testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the prosecution sufficiently authenticated the blood sample and established its chain of custody. Although the officer did not witness the blood draw or remember the exact packaging procedure, the evidence showed that the samples were sealed after collection and remained sealed when received by the laboratory, along with identifying documentation. Absent evidence of tampering, the remaining asserted gaps went to weight rather than admissibility.
The division also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by answering the jury’s question with an instruction explaining the statutory BAC presumptions and permissible inferences. The response correctly stated the law, directed jurors to the general permissible-inference instruction, and did not prevent Wingard from presenting her defense. A witness’s references to the public defender did not warrant a mistrial; while the witness’s statements about how Wingard “always” acted were improper character evidence, their admission was harmless in light of the other evidence and the witness’s evident bias.
Key Takeaways
- A blood sample may be sufficiently authenticated without testimony from every person who handled it when sealed packaging and identifying records reasonably establish its identity and condition.
- A court may provide a clarifying, legally correct instruction during deliberations when a jury’s question reveals confusion about a matter relevant to guilt or innocence.
- Improper character evidence does not require reversal where the error is harmless in light of the overall record and substantial admissible evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that chain-of-custody objections require more than speculative gaps in handling evidence. In DUI cases, evidence that samples were sealed, traceable through accompanying forms, and received intact can support admission even without a witness for every transfer.
It also illustrates the limited circumstances in which post-closing jury instructions or improper witness remarks will justify reversal: the defendant must show resulting prejudice, not merely identify an irregularity.