Posted: 12/14/04
Supreme court rules evidence in fatal 2001 accident admissible
By David Heiller
Argus News Editor
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that blood alcohol evidence taken from the driver in a fatal car accident near Freeburg can be used in court.
The ruling on December 2 involves charges that Houston County filed 2-1/2 years ago against Joseph Steven Heaney of Caledonia.
Heaney was the driver of a truck that rolled over in the early morning of November 18, 2001 on County Road 249, a mile east of Freeburg.
Jesse M. Worsley of Caledonia died in the rollover, and two other people were injured.
On May 1, 2002, a complaint was filed in Houston County District Court charging Heaney with four counts of criminal vehicular operation resulting in death, as well as four counts of criminal vehicular operation resulting in substantial bodily harm.ÝBoth crimes require proof that the defendant drove while having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more, measured within two hours of the time of driving.Ý
Heaney pled not guilty to the charges. His attorney, Gregory Schultz of Caledonia, argued in an omnibus hearing that the blood alcohol evidence should not be allowed because it was obtained in violation of Minnesotaís physician-patient privilege.
The alcohol information was obtained from a blood sample taken in the Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center emergency room in La Crosse, Wisconsin, after the accident. The hospital report showed that Heaneyís blood alcohol concentration was .144 within two hours of the accident.Ý This result was confirmed at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension lab in St. Paul, Minnesota.
A Houston County deputy took a urine sample from Heaney three hours after the accident, which showed Heaneyís alcohol concentration at .08, so the admissibility of the blood sample information could be critical to the case.
The admissibility question stems from Minnesota and Wisconsin having two different laws that pertain to this case.
Under Minnesotaís physician-patient privilege statute, Heaneyís blood-alcohol evidence from the hospital would be inadmissible.
Wisconsinís privilege statute, on the other hand, makes an exception to the evidence where a homicide or intoxication could be involved.
Third District Judge James Fabian granted Heaneyís motion to suppress the hospital and laboratory blood-alcohol evidence because the evidence was obtained in violation of Minnesotaís physician-patient privilege.
Houston County Attorney Rick Jackson then filed a pre-trial appeal. He sought a review on the issue of whether Heaneyís blood-alcohol evidence is admissible in Minnesota where the evidence was properly obtained under Wisconsin law, but Minnesotaís physician-patient privilege statute would preclude its admission at trial.Ý
The court of appeals ruled in Heaneyís favor, holding that the district court correctly applied Minnesotaís physician-patient privilege statute.
Jackson then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments from Schultz and Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Tom Ragatz in St. Paul on September 13.
Their December 2 ruling, written by Justice Helen Meyer, stated that the evidence is admissible. There were two main reasons for this:
1. Evidence that is not privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication will be admitted, even though it would be privileged under the local law of the forum, unless the admission of such evidence would be contrary to the strong public policy of the forum.
2. Evidence that is privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication but which is not privileged under the local law of the forum will be admitted unless there is some special reason why the forum policy favoring admission should not be given effect.
Physician-patient privilege is intended to promote unfettered communication between patient and physician, Meyer wrote in the eight-page ruling, but privileges in this case are an impediment to truth-finding.
Under the ìmost significant relationship with the communicationî rule, the Wisconsin blood-alcohol evidence is admissible in Heaneyís trial in Minnesota, Meyer wrote. The stateís interest in prosecuting those who violate the stateís criminal vehicular operation laws allows the admission of the evidence, she wrote.
Gregory Schultz had this comment about the ruling on December 6: ìThe Supreme Court is the final arbiter on this and weíre obligated to abide by its decision.î
Rick Jackson said he was very pleased with the result of the Supreme Court ruling.
The case will now move forward with a pre-trial hearing. No date for that has been set.
Heaney is out on pre-trial release conditions.
Caledonia Argus
314 West Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 227
Caledonia, MN 55921-0227
507/724-3475
E-Mail: editor.argus@ecm-inc.com