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.
Mississippi DUI Case - New retrograde extrapolation ruling
In a new, yet unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi in Mary Reed EVANS, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. No. 2007-KM-00443-COA, issued on Oct. 28, 2008, ruled that retrograde extrapolation testimony is admissible in a DUI case to show a defendant's projected alcohol level at the time of driving when the alcohol test came over an hour after driving. The holding of the Court was:
For the foregoing reasons, we find the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence of Evans's consumption of alcohol and the expert testimony of Dr. Rosenhan. Additionally, we reject the State's argument that Dr. Rosenhan is not qualified as an expert in retrograde extrapolation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.
The Westlaw cite for this case is2008 WL 4712062. We will provide a published cite if it becomes available.
ANALYSIS: In many states, the Per Se DUI law that was the subject of this case has language that the Per Se Limit (typically .08 or greater) just has to be proven within two hours of driving. Some states have legislation or caselaw that renders retrograde testimony irrelevant as long as the alcohol test sought to be admitted to prove the Per Se violation was obtained within 2 hours of driving.
This ruling is certainly good for the defense. However, if published, it may open the door to a higher court imposing a time limit of retrograde testimony. In my opinion, it is best for this case to remain unpublished for now.
