I'm trying a DWI case where the defendant consented to a blood draw after being requested by one of the officers.

Do I need to admit the actual blood sample (as opposed to the lab report)? I thought I might for chain of custody reasons, since the signatures of the various people who held it.

The other, more pressing concern, is that the lab technician who took the blood is nowhere to be found. She no longer works at the place where the blood was taken and they don't know where she is.

The officer did see the blood taken, so I think I'm think I'm fine with the chain of custody. However, I'm concerned about compliance with 724.017(a). How can I show that she was one of the qualified personel listed in that section if I cannot find her?

I'm considering using one of her supervisors from the facility she used to work at. Any ideas?

The officer can cover chain of custody. Anyone with knowledge of her training can testify she is a qualified technician.

Here are some case cites to support that you can get by without the person who drew the blood testifying:

Blackwell v. State, 2005 WL 548245 (Tex. App. -Austin 2005)
Beck v. State, 651 SW2d 827 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist] 1983
Durrett v. State, 36 SW3d 205 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist] 2001
Yeary v. State, 734 SW2d 766 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1987)

Thank you for the help.

I was able to contact the supervisor, which actually raised another issue.

The supervisor told us that she was not a registered tech, that she cannot do blood draws for alcohol (though this is a DWI Drug case), and that was why she was terminated. The supervisor mentioned all she had was in house training, but knew the proper procedures to follow.

The only way I can see compliance with 724.017(a)is as a "qualified technician" but the supervisor's statments seem to cut that off.

You may have a witness problem but I don't think it rises and falls on the word "registered". A tech does not have to be �registered� to be "qualified". One can be "qualified" based upon ones training and knowledge and experience. I would suggest you conduct a full interview this this witness asking questions that reveal all details of what was done to draw the blood. I would next share the contents of that interview with a nurse or other impeccably qualified witness to get their opinion about whether there is anything about the way the blood draw that they see as improper or that would impact the integrity of the blood draw. If not I would proceed with the witness.

I checked into it.

Her supervisor essentially said that she was let go for consistently overstepping her bounds, this case being an example of that. She also stated that while she had good technical skills and had no reason to believe that proper procedures were not followed, the supervisor did not want her taking legal blood draws and that the supervisor preferrerd people with more qualififications doing them (those with 2 and 4 year degrees) because of her past experience in Court.

The supervisor even cited an old instance where the drawer got into an argument with a medical technologist (who the hospital has designated to do legal draws) about whether our drawer was even supposed to be doing it.

The supervisor also provided (though somewhat dated) a Competency check list which asks if they know everything related legal collections. The response is that she has seen it done, but never done it herself. I don't have any record of training in the area that superseeceds this.

In short, they won't outright say she's not qualified and offered her a little bit of praise, but they're not standing behind her either.

You say her supervisor said "she had good technical skills"--that's all that is necessary to be qualified. The supervisor may require more than that, but the law does not. No where does it say you must have at least a 2 year degree to draw blood. If her blood draws were good enough for the hospital lab then they are good enough in court.

Sounds like you may have inadvertently walked into the middle of a cat fight at the hospital.