Court hears Ferguson appeal over hospital blood evidence and post-trial officer misconduct claims

An appellate panel of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Eastern Section, heard oral argument in Knoxville in the appeal of defendant-appellant Harlan Ferguson, who challenges the admissibility and chain of custody of hospital blood used to prove intoxication and contends post-trial revelations about two deputy sheriffs would have undercut the state’s case.

Why it matters: Ferguson’s conviction for per se DUI and related charges rests in part on blood-alcohol testing. Defense counsel said gaps in the chain of custody and later-discovered misconduct allegations against officers involved in the investigation could have changed the jury’s view; the state said record evidence and laboratory testing are sufficient and any impeachment evidence would not have altered the verdict.

Jonathan Harwell, appearing for Ferguson, told the court the appeal focuses on two evidentiary lines: the hospital blood and medical records, and post-trial disclosures. Harwell said officers obtained four vials of blood from UT Medical Center the day after the February 2016 crash under a search warrant, but that there was no testimony from hospital staff who drew or handled the blood before officers arrived. "You can't prove that was our client's blood," Harwell argued, saying the forensic technician who accompanied officers to the hospital later testified she "couldn't vouch for the integrity of the blood."

Harwell pressed two factual points: (1) the hospital medical record contains a handwritten notation of a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.135 entered at intake, while testing later performed by Tennessee Bureau of Investigation agents returned 0.180; and (2) there was a roughly 15-day interval before the samples were tested at the TBI. He told the panel the mix of unexplained entries, lack of hospital testimony about handling and storage, and the delay in testing created reasonable doubt about identity and integrity of the sample.

State appellate counsel Katherine Redding responded that the record shows the defendant arrived at UT Medical Center on 02/03/2016 at 8:32 p.m., hospital staff documented a type-and-screen order and a blood draw at 8:38 p.m., and that Captain Amburn and forensic technician Officer Bowles later produced four vials labeled with Ferguson’s name under a warrant. "The State reasonably established the integrity and identity of the blood evidence," Redding told the court, and she pointed to testimony from TBI agents that the samples were not degraded.

Redding acknowledged the officers did not observe the hospital draw but said the medical records, the matching label, and agent testimony about the sample’s condition supported admissibility. She cited appellate decisions the parties had briefed (including Singh and Gibson) and said the discrepancies would go to weight for a jury, not to admissibility. "This is what you're required to give me. These are the samples that show up," she said describing the officers' recovery of the vials.

On post-trial claims, Harwell argued newly discovered impeachment material would have undermined confidence in the verdict. He said Captain Amburn later received a verbal reprimand for failing to report misconduct by a superior and that Chief David Henderson was later federally indicted; Harwell said those disclosures show a pattern of misconduct and control of subordinates that, if presented at trial, would have "absolutely" affected the jury. Redding replied that Amburn's reprimand occurred years after the offense, was not tied to the same facts, and that the defense had not shown the evidence was material under the standard for a new trial. She also argued the trial record contained substantial evidence tying Ferguson to the driver's seat, alcohol consumption, and flight from officers, citing eyewitness testimony and the hospital/TBI BAC results.

The panel questioned counsel about harmless-error analysis, whether hospital records had been admitted without contemporaneous objection, and whether the absence of hospital witnesses could have been cured at trial by calling hospital personnel during the pretrial litigation. Neither side reported a trial-court ruling during the argument; the court took the matter under advisement.

The appeals court heard the arguments but did not announce a decision at the hearing.