Willis v. State

Weant, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In the early morning hours of 25 December 1981, Caroleann Willis, appellant, was the driver of a car involved in a two-vehicle accident in Howard County. Two occupants of the other automobile died as a result of the collision. Appellant sustained injuries to her head, ribs, and knee.

After treatment for her injuries at St. Agnes Hospital, appellant consented to a blood alcohol test at the request of Officer Cook of the Howard County Police Department. The test results indicated a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15 percent. Appellant was formally arrested six days later. ⁶⁷ Appellant elected a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County where she was found guilty of two counts of manslaughter by automobile, guilty of driving while intoxicated, and divers traffic violations. A total of five years’ imprisonment was imposed.

The last three years of that sentence were suspended and a five-year period of supervised probation was imposed to follow any term of incarceration. Additionally, fines totaling $600 were levied on appellant for the traffic violations. Appellant challenges the admissibility of the BAC evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions for manslaughter by automobile. A motion was filed to suppress evidence of the BAC test on the grounds that the test was administered in contravention of Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings (C&JP) Article § 10-303.

That statute requires: The specimen of breath or blood shall be taken within two hours after the person is apprehended. Also, C&JP § 10-309 (a) provides that "[e]vidence of chemical analysis is not admissible if obtained contrary to [the provisions of subtitle 3, Title 10 of the C&JP Article].” The interplay between C&JP § 10-303 and § 10-309 was examined by Chief Judge Orth in Major v. State, 31 Md. App. 590, 595 , 358 A.2d 609 (1976): It appears that if a chemical analysis is made from a specimen taken more than two hours after the person is apprehended, evidence thereof may be excluded at the criminal trial. This case requires us to determine when an individual is "apprehended” within the meaning of C&JP § 10-303. Appellant argues that the two-hour clock starts ticking as soon as the police officer has "the possibility of intoxication firmly in mind.” The State contends, citing both Webster’s and Black’s dictionaries as authorities, that apprehension means arrest. ⁶⁸ We reject both interpretations.

The State’s theory would lead to absurd results in this case, and many like it, when the actual arrest takes place several days after the accident. A sample taken within two hours of arrest would reflect the BAC level at the time it is withdrawn, not at the time of the incident. In the instant case, arrest occurred six days after the accident and, a blood sample taken at the time would be irrelevant to the issue of appellant’s sobriety at the time of the accident. Whenever possible, we shun a construction of a statute which would lead to absurd consequences.

Pan Am. Sulphur v. State Dep’t, 251 Md. 620, 627 , 248 A.2d 354 (1967) and cases cited therein. Alternatively, appellant’s construction is equally untenable. We do not believe the Legislature intended to require a police officer to choose between rendering life saving first-aid and administering a breathalyzer test upon arriving at the scene of a serious accident and suspecting that one of the drivers is intoxicated.

Our responsibility in construing the statute is to ascertain and effectuate the actual intent of the Legislature. Pennsylvania Nat’l. Mut. Cas.

Ins. Co. v. Gartelman, 288 Md. 151, 156 , 416 A.2d 734 (1980). "[Statutes that deal with the same subject matter, share a common purpose, and form part of the same general system are in pari materia and must be construed harmoniously in order to give full effect to each enactment.” State v. Loscomb, 291 Md. 424, 432 , 435 A.2d 764 (1981). After considering the legislative history of C&JP Article §§ 10-303 through 10-309 and Transportation Article § 16-205.1, the Court of Appeals concluded that those statutes are to be construed in pari materia.

State v. Loscomb, supra, 291 Md. at 435 . A simultaneous reading and harmonious construction of § 10-303 and § 16-205.1 convinces us that