State v. Stafford

334 So.3d 535

STATE of Alabama

v.Karen Pridgen STAFFORD

CR-19-0187

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 11, 2020

Rehearing Denied December 11, 2020

Certiorari Denied March 12, 2021

Alabama Supreme Court 1200172

Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Marc A. Starrett, asst. atty. gen., for appellant.

Thomas A. Woodall, James R. Sturdivant, and R. Ryan Daugherty of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.

COLE, Judge.

Karen Pridgen Stafford was indicted on a charge of first-degree assault, a violation of § 13A-6-20(5), Ala. Code 1975, for causing serious physical injury to Steven Wayne Edmondson with a motor vehicle while she was driving "under the influence of alcohol." Stafford moved the trial court to dismiss the indictment because the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences ("ADFS"), pursuant to its internal policies and procedures, destroyed a blood sample. Stafford alleged that the destruction of the blood sample "permanently deprived [her] of the use of said crucial evidence thereby violating [her] constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial." After a hearing on Stafford's motion, the trial court dismissed the indictment. The State appeals the trial court's ruling pursuant to Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim. P.

Facts and Procedural History

The State has alleged that, on March 4, 2017, at about 9:00 p.m., Stafford, while driving southbound in a northbound lane, struck Edmondson's vehicle, causing him serious physical injury. At the University of Alabama at Birmingham ("UAB") hospital that night, Stafford told the first responder to the scene of the accident, Homewood Police Officer Kerah Hyatt, that, at the time of the accident, she was on her way home after drinking a margarita at a local restaurant. Stafford also admitted to Officer Hyatt that she knew that she had struck something with her vehicle, but she did not know what she had hit. Stafford's blood sample was drawn pursuant to a search warrant that Officer Hyatt obtained; testing of that blood sample by the ADFS revealed Stafford's blood-alcohol content ("BAC") to be .158 g/100ml, approximately two hours after the accident, which is almost twice the legal limit.¹

Stafford was arrested for first-degree assault on June 21, 2017. In April 2018, Stafford moved the Jefferson District Court to order the State to preserve any biological and physical evidence collected during the investigation of the collision and to suppress the blood sample taken pursuant to the search warrant. No order was entered ruling on Stafford's original motion to preserve and to suppress evidence.

Stafford was indicted in February 2019. On March 8, 2019, Stafford moved the trial court to order the State to preserve all physical evidence collected during the investigation of the collision. On March 14, 2019, the trial court issued a standing general discovery order, which included a provision allowing for inspection of all tangible objects in the State's custody within 14 days of a request to inspect. On April 5, 2019, Stafford moved to compel the production of discoverable materials. On April 9, 2019, the trial court ordered the State to produce to Stafford all discoverable materials by April 12, 2019. On April 12, 2019, the State provided Stafford discovery materials, including the ADFS toxicology report. On April 17, 2019, Stafford filed a motion to suppress the ADFS blood-alcohol evidence because, she alleged, it was "obtained as a result of [a] search warrant based on a bare bones and factually deficient affidavit." (C. 142.)

On April 30, 2019, the State subpoenaed Stafford's hospital records pertaining to her treatment at UAB hospital the night of the accident. Stafford's medical records from UAB hospital that night are included in the clerk's record on appeal. According to the physician who initially treated Stafford at 10:00 p.m., approximately one hour after Stafford collided with Edmondson, Stafford was "intoxicated, endorses drinking tonight." (C. 166.) The UAB lab records further stated that the ethanol level in Stafford's blood upon her arrival at UAB hospital at 9:47 p.m., almost one hour after the accident, was "234 mg/dL," which translates to a BAC of .23, almost three times the legal limit.² Another physician was consulted in treating Stafford that evening and also wrote in his notes that Stafford's BAC was .234 upon her arrival at the hospital and that Stafford "does not remember exactly what happened but does not think she lost consciousness." (C. 178.)

On September 16, 2019, Stafford filed an addendum to her motion to suppress the ADFS blood-alcohol evidence, arguing that the search warrant for that evidence lacked probable cause and/or that the search warrant was granted because of a false statement in the affidavit in support of the search warrant. Stafford alleged that Officer Hyatt's statement in the affidavit regarding Stafford's pupils was false because it was contradictory to the responding paramedic's report.

At the September 23, 2019, motion hearing, Officer Hyatt testified that she arrived at the scene of the accident at about 9:14 p.m. and that Emergency Management Services arrived at about 9:16 p.m. Officer Hyatt first approached Edmondson, who was trapped inside his vehicle but "appeared to be calm" even though he was injured. Officer Hyatt then went to Stafford's vehicle and saw that Stafford was the only occupant and was sitting in the driver's seat. Officer Hyatt did not observe any injuries that Stafford had sustained. However, Stafford was "screaming uncontrollably." (R. 13.) Officer Hyatt tried to calm Stafford down, but Stafford "was unable to answer [her] questions." (R. 13, 19.) Stafford also repeatedly asked Officer Hyatt "if everything was going to be okay," and then, Officer Hyatt stated, Stafford "would begin screaming again." (R. 13, 19.)

During her interaction with Stafford, Officer Hyatt noticed that Stafford's pupils were "constricted" even though they were in a "pretty dim area." (R. 15.) Officer Hyatt compared Stafford's pupils to the pupils of a man standing next to her, and Stafford's pupils "were much smaller than his." (R. 15.) Officer Hyatt also used her flashlight to observe Stafford's pupils’ reaction, which, she testified, "was very slow." (R. 15.) Officer Hyatt further testified that she had received training in assessing whether an individual is impaired, including observing "the pupil reaction" and "the size of the pupil." (R. 16-17.) According to Officer Hyatt, pupil constriction is an indicator of drug or alcohol consumption. Officer Hyatt testified that, as a patrol officer, she uses her training in recognizing drug and alcohol use every day. Based on that training, Officer Hyatt believed that Stafford was impaired. (R. 18.) Officer Hyatt also noted that there is "a concrete median that separates the northbound and southbound lanes" where the accident occurred (R. 22) and that Stafford had been traveling in the "wrong direction" when she hit Edmondson head on. (R. 19.) Officer Hyatt also testified that, according to witnesses she spoke to at the scene, Stafford was traveling at a high speed "southbound in the northbound lane into oncoming traffic" for "approximately 200 yards" and "did not appear to slow down" before striking Edmondson's vehicle, which "was traveling northbound in the northbound lane." (R. 22, 25, 38, 52 (emphasis added).)

Stafford was taken by paramedics to UAB hospital for evaluation and treatment. Edmondson could not be immediately transported because his car doors had to be removed for him to be extricated from his vehicle. Based on her own observations and her conversations with witnesses, Officer Hyatt obtained a search warrant to have Stafford's blood drawn. Officer Hyatt did not immediately charge Stafford with a driving-under-the-influence offense because she was waiting for Stafford's blood to be drawn and tested pursuant to the search warrant.

After Officer Hyatt testified at the motion hearing, Stafford's counsel asked about the blood sample tested by ADFS. (R. 67.) The prosecutor told the court that he could attempt to obtain it the next week and was told by the court that "there is no rush, I would think." (R. 68.) The trial court then gave the parties, after Stafford's counsel's agreement, six weeks to "exchange whatever information" and discovery materials. (R. 69.) The trial court then continued the suppression hearing until November 12, 2019.

In October 2019, Stafford's counsel received an e-mail from the prosecutor stating that he had discovered that the blood-sample kit sent to ADFS "was destroyed after the two-year holding period" but that "photographs of the kit and the case file" were available. (C. 28.) On October 25, 2019, Stafford moved the trial court to either exclude any evidence or testimony regarding the blood test conducted by ADFS or dismiss the indictment. On October 31, 2019, after receiving photographs of the ADFS blood-sample kit from the State, Stafford amended her motion to exclude the blood-sample evidence, arguing that the photographs showed that the kit used to take her blood sample had expired in November 2010 and that the ADFS blood-test results were, thus, unreliable.

The suppression hearing was reconvened on November 12, 2019. At that hearing, Stafford argued that the indictment should be dismissed because, due to "some standard operating procedure," the ADFS had destroyed the blood sample. (R. 77.) Stafford argued that she needed to retest the blood sample "to determine whether the results are inaccurate" because of the expiration of the kit and further argued that, because the sample was destroyed, either the evidence should be excluded or her indictment should be dismissed. (R. 80.) The prosecutor told the trial court that the use of expired vacuum tubes in the test kit did not invalidate the ADFS findings but only "reduce[d] the volume of specimen collected and accordingly limit[ed] the scope of the analyses which may be conducted." (R. 83.) The...