Background
Dmytro Prysich was driving a semitruck on Interstate 80 when he struck and killed a tow-truck driver who was exiting his vehicle on the shoulder. Police obtained a warrant for Prysich’s blood, and a medical technologist drew the sample at the police station. Testing showed a blood-alcohol concentration of .196 grams per 100 milliliters.
The State charged Prysich with vehicular homicide by operating while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident causing death. After trial began, the State added the medical technologist to its minutes of testimony because it needed her testimony to establish foundation for the blood-test results. The district court limited her testimony to foundation and allowed defense counsel to depose her before she testified. The jury acquitted Prysich of leaving the scene but convicted him of vehicular homicide.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined to consider Prysich’s federal and state constitutional challenges to the late-noticed witness because the district court had not ruled on them and Prysich had not alerted the court to that omission. His related ineffective-assistance request could not be considered on direct appeal under Iowa Code section 814.7.
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.19(2). Although the State failed to provide timely notice, exclusion was not mandatory because Prysich knew the technologist’s identity and role through discovery, had video of the blood draw, received time to depose her, and faced testimony limited to foundation.
The court also held that the State established the statutory foundation for the blood-test results. Iowa Code section 321J.11(1) did not require proof of the equipment’s expiration dates or require every item to come from a law-enforcement kit. Evidence that the supplies came from the sealed law-enforcement kit or the technologist’s health-department-stocked kit and were opened from sealed packaging during the draw was sufficient.
Key Takeaways
- A constitutional claim is not preserved when the district court does not rule on it and the party fails to request a ruling.
- Exclusion of a late-noticed prosecution witness under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.19(2) is appropriate only when a less severe remedy cannot adequately protect the defendant from undue prejudice.
- Iowa Code section 321J.11(1) does not require the State to prove expiration dates or show that all blood-draw supplies came from a law-enforcement kit.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Iowa courts may cure late witness disclosure through measures such as a deposition opportunity and limits on testimony when those measures prevent undue prejudice. It also reinforces the importance of obtaining an express district-court ruling to preserve constitutional issues for appeal.
For compelled blood draws, the opinion rejects additional foundational requirements not found in the statutory text. Sealed supplies may satisfy the sanitary-and-sterile requirement even when their expiration dates are not introduced and some items come from a medical professional’s own kit.