# Caffey v. State

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · October 13, 1993 · 43 Ark. App. 160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6552009

## Case

- **Full name:** Randy L. CAFFEY v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 13, 1993
- **Citations:** 43 Ark. App. 160; 862 S.W.2d 293; 1993 Ark. App. LEXIS 554
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Robbins
- **Judges:** Cooper, Mayfield, Robbins
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6552009

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that blood test results were inadmissible where state presented no evidence that phlebotomist had substantially complied with regulations

## Opinion text

John B. Robbins, Judge, concurring. I concur with the majority opinion of this division that the trial court should have required the state to introduce evidence that the blood sample was drawn in substantial compliance with regulations of the State Department of Health, but for a somewhat different reason.
Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-65-206(d) (Supp. 1991) provides, in pertinent part:
“[R]eports of... evidence analysis ... pertaining to work performed by the blood alcohol program of the Arkansas Department of Health ... shall be received as competent evidence as to the matters contained therein . . .”
(Emphasis added.) Although the blood alcohol report which was received into evidence set forth the procedure which was followed in preserving and transporting the blood sample, it did not address the manner in which the blood sample was drawn. If it had set forth the procedure and it appeared to be in compliance with the applicable regulation I would have found no error in admitting the report.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6552009. Public record. Not legal advice.