results of a chemical analysis in Michigan

2017See also MCL 769.34(10); People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305, 310 ; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). -2- (6) The following provisions apply with respect to chemical tests and analysis of a person’s blood, urine, or breath, other than a preliminary chemical breath analysis: *** (e) If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver's blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence

2017See also MCL 769.34(10); People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305, 310 ; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). -2- (6) The following provisions apply with respect to chemical tests and analysis of a person’s blood, urine, or breath, other than a preliminary chemical breath analysis: *** (e) If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver's blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence

1993MCL 257.625a(9); MSA 9.2325(1X9) (now MCL 257.625a[6][e]; MSA 9.2325[l][6][e]), provides in pertinent part: *280 If after an accident the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver’s blood is withdrawn at that time for the purpose of medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample shall be admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime described in subsection (1) to show the amount of alcohol ... in the person’s blood at the time alleged, regardless of whether the person had been offered or had refused a c

1993MCL 257.625a(9); MSA 9.2325(1X9) (now MCL 257.625a[6][e]; MSA 9.2325[l][6][e]), provides in pertinent part: *280 If after an accident the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver’s blood is withdrawn at that time for the purpose of medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample shall be admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime described in subsection (1) to show the amount of alcohol ... in the person’s blood at the time alleged, regardless of whether the person had been offered or had refused a c

2015See People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 408-410 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), rev’d on other grounds People v Antsey, 476 Mich 436 (2006) (holding that, because the defendant was in an accident and his blood was drawn for purposes of medical treatment, evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol test results was admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e)); People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 118-119 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), (holding that the defendants’ blood alcohol test results were admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e) because the withdrawal of blood was done for medical reasons); People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App

2015See People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 408-410 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), rev’d on other grounds People v Antsey, 476 Mich 436 (2006) (holding that, because the defendant was in an accident and his blood was drawn for purposes of medical treatment, evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol test results was admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e)); People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 118-119 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), (holding that the defendants’ blood alcohol test results were admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e) because the withdrawal of blood was done for medical reasons); People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App

2015See People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 408-410 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), rev’d on other grounds People v Antsey, 476 Mich 436 (2006) (holding that, because the defendant was in an accident and his blood was drawn for purposes of medical treatment, evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol test results was admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e)); People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 118-119 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), (holding that the defendants’ blood alcohol test results were admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e) because the withdrawal of blood was done for medical reasons); People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App

2015See People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 408-410 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), rev’d on other grounds People v Antsey, 476 Mich 436 (2006) (holding that, because the defendant was in an accident and his blood was drawn for purposes of medical treatment, evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol test results was admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e)); People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 118-119 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), (holding that the defendants’ blood alcohol test results were admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e) because the withdrawal of blood was done for medical reasons); People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App

2015See People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 408-410 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), rev’d on other grounds People v Antsey, 476 Mich 436 (2006) (holding that, because the defendant was in an accident and his blood was drawn for purposes of medical treatment, evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol test results was admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e)); People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 118-119 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), (holding that the defendants’ blood alcohol test results were admissible under MCL 257.625a(6)(e) because the withdrawal of blood was done for medical reasons); People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App

2004Wilson, supra. MCL 257.625a(6)(e) states: If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver’s blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or both in the person’s blood at the time alleged, regardless of whether the person had been offered or had refused a chemical test.

2001The medical facility or person performing the chemical analysis shall disclose the results of the analysis to a prosecuting attorney who requests the results for use in a criminal prosecutionf.] Our Supreme Court recently ruled that “only persons who have been arrested fall within the purview of the implied consent statute.” Borchard-Ruhland, supra at 285 , citing MCL 257.625c and 257.625a(6)(b).

2001The medical facility or person performing the chemical analysis shall disclose the results of the analysis to a prosecuting attorney who requests the results for use in a criminal prosecution[.] Our Supreme Court recently ruled that "only persons who have been arrested fall within the purview of the implied consent statute." Borchard-Ruhland, supra at 285 , 597 N.W.2d 1 , citing M.C.L. §§ 257.625c and 257.625a(6)(b).

2000Rather, we conclude that the statute requires the people to prove that a defendant, who kills someone by driving while intoxicated, acted knowingly in consuming an intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, and acted voluntarily in deciding to drive after such consumption. 5 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 6 MCL 257.625a(6)(e); MSA 9.2325(l)(6)(e) provides: If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver’s blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the r

2000Rather, we conclude that the statute requires the people to prove that a defendant, who kills someone by driving while intoxicated, acted knowingly in consuming an intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, and acted voluntarily in deciding to drive after such consumption. 5 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 6 MCL 257.625a(6)(e); MSA 9.2325(l)(6)(e) provides: If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver’s blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the r

1994The vehicle has a standard transmission; it was in neutral." For purposes of this appeal, we need only note that the vehicle was not in motion and out of harm's way. [4] MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325. [5] MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2). [6] See n 1. [7] 200 Mich App 277 ; 503 NW2d 755 . [8] See MCL 257.625(1); MSA 9.2325(1), which provided in pertinent part: A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person was, at the time of an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident.... [9] 444 Mich 973 . [10] MCL 257.625

1994The vehicle has a standard transmission; it was in neutral." For purposes of this appeal, we need only note that the vehicle was not in motion and out of harm's way. [4] MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325. [5] MCL 257.625b; MSA 9.2325(2). [6] See n 1. [7] 200 Mich App 277 ; 503 NW2d 755 . [8] See MCL 257.625(1); MSA 9.2325(1), which provided in pertinent part: A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person was, at the time of an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident.... [9] 444 Mich 973 . [10] MCL 257.625

1976In view of the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 397 Mich 384 ; 245 NW2d 18 (1976), holding that the results of a chemical analysis are inadmissible in evidence in a civil action, it would appear that admitting the results of the chemical analysis in this case was error, and that instructing as to a statutory presumption arising from inadmissible evidence would also clearly be error.

1976In view of the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 397 Mich 384 ; 245 NW2d 18 (1976), holding that the results of a chemical analysis are inadmissible in evidence in a civil action, it would appear that admitting the results of the chemical analysis in this case was error, and that instructing as to a statutory presumption arising from inadmissible evidence would also clearly be error.