Bill Text: NJ A1446 | 2012-2013 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Establishes procedures for admitting into evidence blood sample certificates and related lab reports in drunk driving cases.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2012-01-10 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee [A1446 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2012-A1446-Introduced.html
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
215th LEGISLATURE
PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2012 SESSION
Sponsored by:
Assemblyman REED GUSCIORA
District 15 (Hunterdon and Mercer)
SYNOPSIS
Establishes procedures for admitting into evidence blood sample certificates and related lab reports in drunk driving cases.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel
An Act concerning the right of confrontation in drunk driving cases and amending P.L.1986, c.189.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. Section 2 of P.L.1986, c.189 (C.2A:62A-11) is amended to read as follows:
2. a. Any person taking a specimen pursuant to section 1 of [this act] P.L.1986, c.189 (C.2A:62A-10) shall, upon request, furnish to any law enforcement agency a certificate stating that the specimen was taken pursuant to section 1 of [this act] P.L.1986, c.189 (C.2A:62A-10) and in a medically acceptable manner. The certificate shall be signed under oath before a notary public or other person empowered to take oaths and shall be admissible in any proceeding as evidence of the statements contained therein.
b. Whenever a party intends to proffer in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding, a certificate executed pursuant to subsection a. of this section or a laboratory report or other document related to the analysis of a specimen taken pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1986, c.189 (C.2A:62A-10), notice of an intent to proffer that certificate and all reports relating to the analysis in question, including a copy of the certificate or report, shall be conveyed to the opposing party or parties at least 20 days before the proceeding begins. An opposing party who intends to object to the admission into evidence of a certificate or laboratory report shall give notice of objection and the grounds for the objection within 10 days upon receiving the adversary's notice of intent to proffer the certificate or laboratory report. Whenever a notice of objection is filed, admissibility of the certificate or laboratory report shall be determined not later than two days before the beginning of the trial. A proffered certificate or laboratory report shall be admitted in evidence unless it appears from the notice of objection and specific grounds for that objection that the composition, quality, or quantity of the specimen of breath, blood, urine, or other bodily substance submitted to the laboratory for analysis will be contested at trial. A failure to comply with the time limitations regarding the notice of objection required by this section shall constitute a waiver of any objections to the admission of the certificate or laboratory report. The time limitations set forth in this subsection shall not be relaxed except upon a showing of good cause.
c. The court may
authorize any person required to testify in a criminal or quasi-criminal
proceeding pursuant to subsection b. of
this section to submit a de bene esse videotaped deposition or testify at
trial via remote video conference.
(cf: P.L.1986, c. 189, s.2)
2. This act shall take effect on the first day of the fourth month after enactment.
STATEMENT
This bill would set forth the procedural requirements for admitting into evidence a certificate or laboratory report concerning the taking or analysis of a blood specimen in drunk driving cases in order to comport with the defendant's constitutional right to confront State witnesses.
Under current law, physicians, nurses, and medical technicians who give to a law enforcement officer a specimen of breath, blood, urine, or other bodily substance that was withdrawn in a medically accepted manner are immune from civil or criminal liability if they acted with the skill and care that is ordinarily required and exercised by others in the profession. If requested, the person who took the specimen must provide a signed and notarized certificate that the specimen was given to comply with this law and that it was taken in a medically accepted manner. The certificate is admissible in a court proceeding as evidence.
In a recent drunk driving case, State v. Kent, 391 N.J.Super. 352 (App. Div. 2007), the court held these blood sample certificates, as well as State Police laboratory reports analyzing the blood alcohol content of the blood samples, constituted "testimonial" hearsay declarations, and as such, the defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to confront those who authored the certificate and reports.
Balancing the rights of the defendant against the inconvenience to this State's nurses, phlebotomists, chemists, and other third-party witnesses who would now be required to take off time from work and travel to court, the court noted that these cross-examinations should be limited to cases where worthwhile information may be extracted. Therefore, the court held that defendants must provide reasonable advance notice to the prosecution if they want to cross-examine these witnesses and that a defendant who fails to provide the required notice would waive the right to cross-examine these witnesses.
To implement its holding, the court suggested that the Legislature consider adopting a so-called "notice-demand" statute for blood sample certificates and related State Police laboratory reports used in drunk driving cases similar to the notice-demand statute applicable in controlled dangerous substance cases. This bill would codify this suggestion by requiring a party to give 20 days' notice to the opposing party if he or she intends to proffer in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding, a blood sample certificate or related laboratory report. Opposing parties must give 10-days' notice if they object to the document's admission and give grounds for the objection. Whether the evidence will be admitted must be decided at least two days before trial. The evidence is to be admitted unless it appears that the composition, quality, or quantity of the specimen submitted to the laboratory for analysis will be contested at trial. Failure to comply with these time limitations constitutes a waiver of any objection, unless good cause is shown.
To minimize the time that witnesses in these cases would need to be in court, the court also suggested that they be able to submit de bene esse videotaped depositions and testify via remote video conference at trials. De bene esse depositions are conditional depositions which are not usable if the witness is available at the trial. The bill also would codify these suggestions.
