Supreme Court rules jury shouldn't have been told man refused blood test in DUI trial

Apr. 30—The state Supreme Court has ruled an Owensboro man who was sentenced to prison on a DUI charge faced a biased jury when they were told the man had refused to consent to a blood test to determine his blood-alcohol level.

The justices ruled Jared L. McCarthy had a right to consent to a blood test, and that prosecutors were improperly allowed to tell jurors McCarthy had refused the test at trial. The justices ruled the law enforcement officer who stopped McCarty for DUI in 2014 could have gathered evidence by either having McCarthy take a breath test, or by getting a search warrant for a blood draw, but did neither of those things.

The ruling was issued Thursday.

With differing accounts of McCarthy's performance on field sobriety tests, and no breath or blood evidence, the fact that McCarthy refused a blood test was probably viewed as evidence of his guilt at trial, the justices wrote.

The case involves a Nov. 1, 2014 incident where an Owensboro Police Department officer stopped McCarthy, who was seen driving out of a bar parking lot with a group of people. The officer testified he saw McCarthy driving erratically, stopped him and performed field sobriety tests. McCarthy was charged with DUI (fourth or subsequent offense) and taken to the hospital where he refused to consent to a blood draw.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2016 a blood draw is an intrusive search. While a breath test does not require a search warrant, one is required for a blood test.

At trial, the officer testified he had never sought a warrant for a blood draw and didn't know that was possible.

The trial judge ruled McCarthy's refusal to have his blood taken could not be used against him as evidence of his guilt. But the judge ruled prosecutors could tell the jury McCarthy had refused the test as a way of explaining why prosecutors had no scientific evidence that McCarthy was intoxicated. McCarthy's defense team was barred from explicitly arguing that officers could have sought a warrant, but did not.

Witnesses testified they did not see McCarthy drinking that night and the defense disputed the officer's interpretation of McCarthy's performance on the field sobriety tests, and noted McCarthy "did not 'fail' any test," the opinion says.

The judge's decision to let jurors hear McCarthy refused a blood test was not "harmless," because jurors were not admonished to not consider his refusal as evidence of his guilt, the justices wrote.

"With the Commonwealth's evidence being less than overwhelming and McCarthy having credible witnesses in his favor, a reasonable possibility exists that the inference of guilt associated with (McCarthy's) refusal tainted the jury's view of McCarthy's behavior during the stop and performance on the field sobriety tests, contributing to his conviction," the justices wrote.

Allowing jurors to hear McCarthy refused to consent to a blood draw "eviscerated the protections accorded McCarthy's Fourth Amendment rights" to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, the justices wrote.

James Mayse, 270-691-7303, jmayse@messenger-inquirer.com, Twitter: @JamesMayse

James Mayse, 270-691-7303, jmayse@messenger-inquirer.com, Twitter: @JamesMayse