State v. Martin

“The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” OEC 901(1). “Showing that the blood sample was a valid blood draw from defendant involves laying a traditional chain of custody foundation[.]” State v. Owens, 207 Or App 31, 41, 139 P3d 984 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 503 (2007).

Defendant appealed convictions for the charges of driving under the influence of intoxicants and reckless driving. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in granting the state’s motion for admission into evidence medical records claiming to present defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC). Defendant further contends that the state failed to demonstrate a “chain of custody” attaching defendant to the BAC. The court first addressed the preservation issue. For a party to preserve their argument for appeal, “the appellant must demonstrate that the question or issue presented by the assignment of error timely and properly was raised and preserved in the lower court. The appellant must have made the argument with sufficient particularity to allow the trial court to rule on the argument and correct any error.” State v. Reeves, 250 Or App 294, 301, 280 P3d 994, rev den, 352 Or 565 (2012). The court found that defendant preserved his argument because the argument at issue was put forth in the defendant’s answer to the state’s motion.  As to the “chain of custody," the court reasoned that a “[s]howing that the blood sample was a valid blood draw from defendant involves laying a traditional chain of custody foundation.” State v. Owens, 207 Or App 31, 41, 139 P3d 984 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 503 (2007).  The Court found the trial court erred in admitting the evidence because it could not determine with a reasonable probability “that the test results traced back to defendant’s blood.” Convictions reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.