Thirty-five years in prison for drug-related DUI deaths
The Mississippi Court of Appeals has issued a lengthy opinion in the case of the horrific drug-related DUI deaths of four young college students. The driver, on a cocktail of impairing prescription drugs was ultimately convicted of four counts and sentences to consecutive sentences of 15 years on each. Some of the time was suspended, leaving her with a total of 35 years in prison.
There are more questions answered in the opinion (cited with link below) than this post addresses. Some of the major ones are quoted separately below.
Excerpts from the case and holdings:
There are several important holdings in this opinion, which are addressed one at a time below.
Issue: Was Testimony of a blood test result taken outside of 2 hours improperly admitted into evidence?
Holding: Based on our review of the record, we find no evidence of deliberate delay on behalf of Officer Brantley. The evidence shows that Officer Brantley was not immediately aware that Teston was under the influence, and he was not immediately aware of her involvement in the accident. Further delay was caused by the time it took for the tow truck to arrive, the travel time to the police station, and the travel time to the hospital. Also, we do not find any evidence that Teston was prejudiced by the lapse in time. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err by admitting Teston's blood test results into evidence.
Issue: Was the state’s expert improperly allowed to testify to an opinion of the defendant’s level of impairment at the time of the accident?
Holding: The trial court is in the best position to determine relevancy and reliability of expert testimony, and in this case, the trial court determined that Dr. Barbieri's testimony was relevant and reliable. Based upon a review of the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Barbieri's expert testimony.
Issue: Did the prosecutor improperly comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent?
Holding: When viewed in the context of the entire argument, the disputed statement--"She can't come here with a straight face and tell you I lied for whatever kind, sweet reason counsel opposite might have you believe"--is not a comment on Teston's failure to testify. The prosecutor simply responded to the comments that defense counsel made during closing argument. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err by denying Teston's motion for a mistrial.
Issue: Were circumstantial admissions of the defendant improperly admitted into evidence to establish that she was the driver of the vehicle?
Holding: Additionally, Officer Brantley testified that Teston identified herself as the driver of the black Honda. Teston also argues that although she identified herself to Officer Brantley as the driver of the black Honda, Officer Brantley did not ask her if she was driving at the time of the accident. We find that this is of no consequence. Based on our review of the record, we find that the State presented direct evidence identifying Teston as the driver of the black Honda, and we did not find any evidence in the record that would refute this fact. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err by denying Teston's circumstantial-evidence instruction.
Issue: Is an actual prison sentence of 35 years excessive for the deaths of four young people?
Holding: In this case, Teston was found guilty on all four counts and was sentenced to serve consecutive terms of fifteen years on each count, totaling sixty years, with thirty years suspended and five years of post-release supervision, leaving Teston with thirty years to serve. We find that Teston's sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed because the trial court sentenced her within the guidelines provided by the statute. Thus, we find that Teston's argument is without merit.
My Analysis: This is a gut-wrenching case, and one that could happen to anybody taking prescription medications and driving around. It shows that alcohol is not the only (or even primary) danger in impaired driving cases anymore. Thanks to the efforts of the pharmacy companies and the tolerance of the federal government for their ads, we have created a whole new breed of dangerous drug-impaired driver.
DUI Practice Tip: It is becoming more and more important for attorneys involved in impaired driving litigation to master the tools of detection of drug impaired drivers. I highly recommend studying the DRE manuals, and researching the effects of prescription drugs on driving.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/96844
My Analysis: Another looser out there on the streets killing people. 35 years breaks down to under 9 years per victim. Sounds pretty light.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Your analysis is shared by most jurists and a vast majority of the public. The facts of the case are tragic, and the law can provide no easy answers as to how to prevent such tragedies.
The problem is a sense of proportion. There are people who have committed intentional crimes, who have willfully tortured people, raped people, kidnapped people, and these people often times do less time than the defendant in this case. Do they deserve more time? Does she deserve less? The popular opinion in America is "more time." And perhaps more time is our only or best answer.
Perhaps the publicity that this case received, along with the opinion, will serve as a deterrent to even one person on Rx medications who would otherwise drive.
Surely the defendant is to blame. But so is the pharmaceutical industry and the government that allows these drugs to be so freely advertised and distributed while waging a nominal "war" on nontaxable drugs.
The loss of one more life to impaired driving is one too many, and yet the law, to date, is impotent to stop it.
You say it "sounds pretty light," and I respect your opinion. What penalty would you propose under the facts of this horrible tragedy?