Suttle v. State
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
565 So. 2d 1197 (1990)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Julian Suttle (defendant) was convicted of vehicular homicide. Suttle was brought to the hospital after he collided with another car, killing the other driver’s passenger. Nurse Barbara Middleton testified that she took blood samples from Suttle at the hospital, put the blood in vials labelled with Suttle’s name, and gave them to Trooper Elizabeth Cobb. Toxicologist Laura Shevlin testified that, three days after Middleton drew the blood samples, Shevlin took a gray cardboard mailing cylinder from the Department of Forensic Sciences’ post-office box. Inside the cylinder were two white vials of blood labelled with Suttle’s name and the date that the blood was drawn. Although Middleton testified that the vials that she gave to Cobb were not taped shut, the vials were taped when Shevlin received them. Trooper Cobb died before Suttle’s trial began. The government (plaintiff) presented no evidence to account for what had happened to the samples from the time that Middleton gave them to Cobb until the time that Shevlin received them in the mail four days later. Over Suttle’s objection, the trial court admitted the vials as evidence, and Shevlin testified that the blood sample in one of the vials had a blood-alcohol level of .29 percent. Suttle appealed, arguing that the circuit court had erred by admitting the blood vials and Shevlin’s blood-alcohol-level testimony because the government had failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the blood vials.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bowen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.