taking of a blood test in Texas

1982Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and Olson v. State, 484 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), “have removed the constitutional impediment of consent as to the taking of a blood test or other chemical test;” however, “this does not obviate the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions, even though statutory requirements may not now be constitutionally required.” Olson v. State, 484 S.W.2d at 772 .

1982Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and Olson v. State, 484 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), “have removed the constitutional impediment of consent as to the taking of a blood test or other chemical test;” however, “this does not obviate the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions, even though statutory requirements may not now be constitutionally required.” Olson v. State, 484 S.W.2d at 772 .

1984Ground of error five is overruled." In Burkhalter v. State, 642 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.App.—Houston (14th Dist.)—1982), the court wrote: *127 "As we have noted above, a lack of consent to the taking of a blood test presents no constitutional barrier to admitting the results of the blood test into evidence where a defendant was unconscious and not under arrest when a blood sample was taken, the Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that the exigency of rapidly dissipating alcohol justified the obtaining of a blood sample without the donor's consent and the obtaining of a blood sample under those cir

1984Ground of error five is overruled.” In Burkhalter v. State, 642 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.App.—Houston (14th Dist.)—1982), the court wrote: As we have noted above, a lack of consent to the taking of a blood test presents no constitutional barrier to admitting the results of the blood test into evidence where a defendant was unconscious and not under arrest when a blood sample was taken, the Court of Criminal Appeals recently held that the exigency of rapidly dissipating alcohol justified the obtaining of a blood sample without the donor’s consent and the obtaining of a blood sample under those circumsta

1983Normally, expert fees necessary to establish an evidentiary matter are not “costs,” see Whitley v. King, 581 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1979, no writ), but in the present case, the taking of a blood test by the parties is mandated by § 13.02 and properly taxed as court costs.

1975Even though the overruling of Trammell [v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 543 , 287 S.W.2d 487 ] may have removed a constitutional impediment of consent as to the taking of a blood test or other chemical tests, this does not obviate the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions, even though statutory requirements may not now be constitutionally required.” The appellant relies solely upon the statutory provisions which were found in Article 802f, V.A.P.C. on the day of the alleged offense; these provisions have since been designated as 67011-5, V.A.C.S. by authority of Sec. 5, Acts 1973, 63rd Leg

1975Even though the overruling of Trammell [v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 543 , 287 S.W.2d 487 ] may have removed a constitutional impediment of consent as to the taking of a blood test or other chemical tests, this does not obviate the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions, even though statutory requirements may not now be constitutionally required.” The appellant relies solely upon the statutory provisions which were found in Article 802f, V.A.P.C. on the day of the alleged offense; these provisions have since been designated as 67011-5, V.A.C.S. by authority of Sec. 5, Acts 1973, 63rd Leg

1968Only recently in Burns v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 93 , this Court had occasion to pass upon the question of the admissibility of “exemplars” of handwriting specimens.

1968On February 9, 1966, prior to appellant’s trial, this Court had told all trial judges in our opinion in Lugo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 769 , that the old confession statute, Art. 727, V.A.C.C.P., in effect at the time of appellant’s arrest, did not apply to the taking of a blood test.

1964Mora v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 321 , 263 S.W.2d 787 .

1964Mora v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 321 , 263 S.W.2d 787 .

1961The Court of Criminal Appeals held at page 916: "In view of this testimony we perceive no error in permitting the witness Chastaine to testify as to the result of the blood test and express his opinion as to the amount of alcohol or number of bottles of beer a per- son would have to consume in order to have a certain percentage of alcohol in his blood." In Sandel v. State, 253 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. Crim. 1952) appellant complained on appeal of the introduction of testimony regarding the taking of a blood test and the results thereof.