West Texas Gas, Inc. v. Carthel Brothers, 4M Brothers, J.O. Dawdy, Larry J. Adrian and Ronald D. Graham--Appeal from 110th District Court of Floyd County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 7th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » West Texas Gas, Inc. v. Carthel Brothers, 4M Brothers, J.O. Dawdy, Larry J. Adrian and Ronald D. Graham--Appeal from 110th District Court of Floyd County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 07-06-00168-CV

Case Date: 10/30/2007

Plaintiff: VINCENT G. WOODARD

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 377th District Court of Victoria County

Preview:VINCENT G. WOODARD v. THE STATE OF TEXAS-
-Appeal from 377th District Court of Victoria County
NUMBER 13-01-524-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
VINCENT G. WOODARD, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ya ez and Castillo
Opinion by Justice Ya ez
Appellant, Vincent G. Woodard, was tried before a jury and found guilty of intoxication manslaughter as a habitual
felon with a finding of a deadly weapon, and sentenced to life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. Through one issue, appellant contends that he was illegally searched when his blood was drawn
without consent. We overrule the issue and affirm the trial court.
Appellant drove his motor vehicle into a severe accident resulting in the death of Kein Sanford. After the accident,
appellant was rushed to the emergency room of Citizens Medical Center. The medical center staff drew the appellant=s
blood as a part of its medical procedure. Hospital personnel performed a number of tests on the blood, including one
for blood alcohol concentration. The hospital tests revealed that appellant had a blood alcohol content level of .226.
Subsequently, the criminal district attorney=s office presented two grand jury subpoenas for the appellant=s medical
records and four tubes of the appellant=s blood. The tubes of blood were analyzed by the Department of Public Safety
lab and found to have a blood alcohol content of .22. Appellant now contends he was illegally searched when the
blood was drawn without his consent.
While an appellate court must view the historical facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's determination,
whether those facts give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. See
State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
As a general rule, the taking of a blood sample is a "search and seizure" within the meaning of Article I, Section 9, of
the Texas Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tex. Const. art. I, ' 9; see
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966); Weaver v. State, 721 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st
District] 1986, pet. ref=d.). However, where the State is not involved in obtaining the blood sample, the constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply. See Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1976); Weaver, 721 S.W.2d at 497.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12226.html[8/20/2013 9:22:24 PM]

Moreover, this Court visited this issue in Clark v. State, 933 S.W.2d 332, 333 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1996, no
pet.). In Clark, appellant was involved in an automobile accident and taken to Memorial Medical Center in Corpus
Christi. Id. The emergency room doctor "called out a trauma code" and, in accordance with hospital protocol, an
emergency room technician drew blood from appellant. Id. Part of the trauma protocol was to check for blood-alcohol
concentration. Id. Sometime thereafter, a grand jury subpoena was issued for the blood test results. Id. The State then
obtained the results as a result of the subpoena. Id. On appeal, the appellant alleged that his blood was seized without a
warrant and without his consent. Id. Under these circumstances, this Court held there was no illegal search and seizure
of the appellant=s blood, as the sample was drawn for medical purposes. Id.
The facts in the instant case are no different. In this case, as in Clark, after a severe motor vehicle accident, appellant
was taken to a medical care facility. See id. As part of the standard care for his condition, blood was drawn by medical
personnel. A blood-alcohol concentration test was performed by hospital staff as part of the standard procedure. At no
time did the State participate in the drawing of blood or the testing of the blood at the hospital. Furthermore, the State
did not order the hospital to take the sample. The results were obtained by the State through a grand jury subpoena.
Therefore, just as in Clark, there was no illegal search and seizure of appellant=s blood. See id.
We hold that there was no illegal seizure of the appellant=s blood and overrule the issue.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
LINDA REYNA YA EZ
Justice
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this the
15th day of August, 2002.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12226.html[8/20/2013 9:22:24 PM]

Download 12226.pdf