People v Michael Dennis Reid

EVIDENCE -- Blood Samples or Testing
ARREST -- Delay In
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION -- Amendment Of
POST-TRIAL MOTIONS AND APPEALS -- New Trial -- Great Weight of Evidence
APPEALS -- Scope of Appellate Review -- Raising Issues through Trial Objection
 
People v Michael Dennis Reid
___ Mich App___ (#286784, 05-10-11)
PC: Donofrio, Sawyer, Owens
Neil Pioch
 
Affirmed conviction of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
 
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the blood test results.  Although the blood sample was destroyed two and a half years after the arrest, and six months after charges were brought against defendant, there was more than an ample opportunity to have his blood sample independently tested.

The delay in charging defendant did not violate his right to due process of law.  The sample was not destroyed until six months after defendant was charged.  Any prejudice from failing to obtain an independent test was because defendant failed to promptly request such a test, not because the delay in charging him precluded him from requesting a test.  Moreover, defendant failed to show that the prosecutor gained a tactical advantage in the delay in bringing charges in that the prosecutor knew that the State Police would have long since destroyed the videotape of the traffic stop.  It was mere speculation that a videotape existed or that a videotape would have been helpful to defendant.  Even if a video had existed, it would have been taped over after 60 days.

Defendant was not unfairly prejudiced when the prosecutor was permitted to amend the information to state “while under the influence of alcohol and/or a controlled substance” after the jury was impaneled. The amendment was to add the claim of alcohol, not to add a claim of a controlled substance.  Because defendant’s argument is premised upon adding the claim of a controlled substance and this did not happen, there is no plain error to correct.
 
The verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. There was substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt. The officer testified that defendant failed field sobriety tests at the time of the traffic stop, and the lab technician testified as to the results of the blood tests establishing the level of alcohol and drugs in defendant’s system.
 
Defendant waived any error in the intoxication instruction.  Defense counsel expressly approved the instruction given.