## Facts

- Rachel Shirley ran a stop sign at the intersection of Louisiana Highways 327 and 99, causing a one-car crash in which the vehicle flipped and a passenger later died.
- At the scene, Shirley told an investigating officer she had been drinking, describing her consumption as “two Smirnoff’s and two Budlight beers.”
- After learning at the hospital that the passenger had died, a police chief directed that hospital personnel draw Shirley’s blood; two vials were collected, stored by police, and delivered to the state crime laboratory.
- A crime-lab forensic scientist tested the sample and reported a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.03%, which exceeded the legal limit applicable to drivers under 21.
- Shirley was indicted for vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol under La. Rev. Stat. § 14:32.1(A)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether Shirley’s on-scene statements were properly suppressed because hearsay evidence was used at the suppression hearing and Miranda warnings were not given.
2. Whether the blood-alcohol test results were properly suppressed as presumptive evidence under La. Rev. Stat. § 32:662 due to the State’s failure to prove statutory prerequisites, including that a qualified person drew the blood.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the suppression order as to Shirley’s on-scene statements.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding hearsay testimony at the suppression hearing and by treating the scene questioning as custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.
- The court affirmed suppression of the blood-test results as presumptive evidence under La. Rev. Stat. § 32:662 because the State failed to prove compliance with statutory requirements, including proof of the blood drawer’s qualifications.
- The court indicated the ruling did not necessarily bar all use of the test results and left open possible admission as non-presumptive circumstantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Suppression hearings are not governed by the same evidentiary constraints as trials; hearsay may be considered (subject to privilege limits) in deciding a motion to suppress.
- Miranda warnings are required only for custodial interrogation; routine on-scene questioning during an accident investigation is generally non-custodial.
- When the State seeks to admit chemical-test results as presumptive evidence under La. Rev. Stat. § 32:662, it bears the burden to prove statutory compliance, including that the blood was drawn by a statutorily qualified person.
- Failure to prove statutory prerequisites supports suppression of the test results for presumptive-evidence purposes, even if the data may be offered later without statutory presumptions if otherwise admissible.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the defendant’s accident-scene admissions because Miranda did not apply and hearsay may be considered at suppression hearings, but it upheld suppression of the BAC result as presumptive proof because the State did not establish the statutory foundation for a § 32:662 presumption.


State v. Shirley, 10 So. 3d 224 (La. 2009)