§
Subdivision 1.Certificates of analysis; blood sample reports; chain of custody.
(a) In any hearing or trial of a criminal offense or petty misdemeanor or proceeding pursuant to section 169A.53, subdivision 3, or 171.177, the following documents shall be admissible in evidence:
(1) a report of the facts and results of any laboratory analysis or examination if it is prepared and attested by the person performing the laboratory analysis or examination in any laboratory operated by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension or authorized by the bureau to conduct an analysis or examination, or in any laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the federal Postal Inspection Service, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or the federal Drug Enforcement Administration;
(2) a report of a blood sample withdrawn under the implied consent law under sections 169A.50 to 169A.53 or section 171.177 if:
(i) the report was prepared by the person who administered the test;
(ii) the person who withdrew the blood sample was competent to administer the test under section 169A.51, subdivision 7; and
(iii) the report was prepared consistent with any applicable rules promulgated by the commissioner of public safety; and
(3) a verified chain of custody of a specimen while under the control of a laboratory described in clause (1).
(b) A report described in paragraph (a), clause (1), purported to be signed by the person performing the analysis or examination in a laboratory named in that clause, or a blood sample report described in paragraph (a), clause (2), purported to be signed by the person who withdrew the blood sample shall be admissible as evidence without proof of the seal, signature or official character of the person whose name is signed to it. The signature in paragraph (a), clause (1) or (2), can be written or in electronic format.
(c) At least 20 days before trial, the prosecutor shall submit to the accused person or the accused person's attorney notice of the contents of a report described in paragraph (a) and of the requirements of subdivision 2.
§
Subd. 2.Testimony at trial.
(a) Except in civil proceedings, including proceedings under section 169A.53, an accused person or the accused person's attorney may request, by notifying the prosecuting attorney at least ten days before the trial, that the following persons testify in person at the trial on behalf of the state:
(1) a person who performed the laboratory analysis or examination for the report described in subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (1); or
(2) a person who prepared the blood sample report described in subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2).
If a petitioner in a proceeding under section 169A.53 subpoenas a person described in clause (1) or (2), to testify at the proceeding, the petitioner is not required to pay the person witness fees under section 357.22 in excess of $100.
(b) If the accused person or the accused person's attorney does not comply with the ten-day requirement described in paragraph (a), the prosecutor is not required to produce the person who performed the analysis or examination or prepared the report. In this case, the accused person's right to confront that witness is waived and the report shall be admitted into evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case:
State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 2006).
· cites it 73× “[1] We hold *307 that the report is testimonial and that its admission, under the statute permitting its introduction without the testimony of the analyst, violated Caulfield's rights under the Confrontation Clause.”
State v. Pearson, 633 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 26× “Does Minn.Stat. § 634.15 (1998), governing the admission of blood samples into evidence, violate the separation of powers doctrine of the Minnesota Constitution? ANALYSIS 1.”
Weise v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 370 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 20× “The trial court excluded blood test results because the Commissioner failed to produce at the implied consent hearing the appropriate laboratory personnel pursuant to notice and the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 634.15, subd. 2 (1984). We reverse and remand for hearing.”
Smith v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 401 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 12× “Should the driver's license revocation be rescinded because the Commissioner failed to present live testimony as to the withdrawal and analysis of the blood sample, despite a timely demand for such testimony by the appellant pursuant to Minn.”
State v. Flermoen, 785 N.W.2d 787 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Similarly, although Minn.Stat. § 634.15, subd. 1(a)(2) (2008), addresses the admissibility of a blood-sample report in “any hearing or trial of a criminal offense or petty misdemeanor or proceeding pursuant to section 169A.”
Grimm v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 469 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 14× “Respondent objected, arguing that Minn.Stat. § 634.15 required the signature be notarized.”
Glick v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 362 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “ISSUE Did the trial court err in admitting into evidence the report of a blood sample without evidence of the competency of the blood test administrator? ANALYSIS Glick claims Minn.Stat. § 634.15 (1982) requires that the person taking a blood sample be shown to be qualified.”
Roche v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 372 N.W.2d 92 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 12× “Nothing has happened, and therefore if there was a Motion made to bar this from evidence on the ground there is no foundation that a blood sample was properly before the Bureau, so I am now going to sustain that objection, and Exhibit 2 is not admissible.”
Bortnem v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 610 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 10× “3 (1998), and (2) Minn. Stat. § 634.15 (1998), which provides that certain certificates of analysis and blood sample reports shall be admissible at an implied consent hearing, is constitutional.”
Lindberg v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 498 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Under Minn.Stat. § 634.15, subd. 1(a) (1990) “[a] report of the facts and results of a laboratory analysis or examination” is admissible in evidence in an implied consent hearing if the report “is prepared and attested by the person performing the laboratory analysis or…”
State v. Scharfencamp, 416 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 6× “See Minn.Stat. § 634.15, subd. 2 (1986). The pretrial hearing was canceled when Scharfencamp agreed he had “no constitutional objection, nor any objection under [the implied consent law]” to the admissibility of the blood test.”
State v. Thomas, 467 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “He concedes, however, that the trial court properly admitted the results into evidence under Minn.Stat. § 634.15 (1988). Appellant presented evidence challenging the reliability of the test.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.