I have a growing list of DWIs based upon drugs--sadly, most are prescription drugs. Any of you who have gone to trial on these--do you have doctors come in to testify about the drugs and the warnings, dosages, etc.?

We have blood draws on some, and none on others--no hospital here, so getting blood drawn is problematic. Do you call in the person who did take the blood if you have it?

Any ideas would help--this is a whole new area for me!!

First, I'm not an attorney so my opinions of the law are basically worth what you pay for them... nothing.

Anyway, since there is no defined blood level percentage for drugs other than alcohol I imagine that the most important evidence would be the officer's testimony and video showing lack of normal use of mental or physical faculties.

On cases without the blood evidence I assume the defendant confessed to officer regarding the recent drug use.

Since there is no culpable mental state for DWI... whether the defendant was properly warned of the dangers is not something you legally need to prove... emotionally you might want to prove it if defendant brings a "Taint Fair" defense.

Good points. It's usually the defense who wants numbers and science (especially when I don't have it).

I guess you're right, the video will be the most important issue. One of the cases is based on a meth user (who doesn't admit to meth use that day, but is extremely twitchy). My DRE says that stimulants like meth and cocaine do not cause HGN, so what is usually my best science is missing. She looks bad, blows into the intoxilyzer saying things about, "The last time I blew they let me go. I haven't had any beer." but doesn't admit drug use until questioned by the jailer.

We have called local pharmacists to talk about the effect of certain prescription drugs on one's ability to drive.

quote:

---

Anyway, since there is no defined blood level percentage for drugs other than alcohol I imagine that the most important evidence would be the officer's testimony and video showing lack of normal use of mental or physical faculties.

---

Yes, but be careful...You still have to prove that the defendant did not have the normal use of his mental or physical faculties BY REASON OF the introduction of some substance into the body; not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties on a particular occasion without more isn't enough (God knows many of us would be guilty of that!!). A pill bottle, admission to medication, etc. is enough to corroborate that, but I would suggest also checking with a pharmacist (and you already mentioned a DRE - that's a good resource also). Sometimes someone in your medical staff at the jail can be useful as well. Check the bookin documentation, and if it's useful, get the bookin officer if it's not the same as your arresting officer. They take medical screening information, not for purposes of guilt, but because it is necessary to their medical treatment, if any, at the jail. If they put them in a detox cell because they were high, that's relevant too. If it's Rx stuff, you're going to have to voir dire on reserving sympathy for the punishment stage, what is a "controlled substance" or "dangerous drug" - and whether it's fair to prosecute if someone is under a doctor's care (of course it is - it doesn't mean they're any less dangerous - and we all know not to drive ourselves if we're medicated).

As far as the blood evidence itself, and introducing it, you are not necessarily legally required to bring the person who drew the blood, but it makes life a whole lot easier. Check out someone's materials from the Intox Manslaughter course on blood evidence.

Two cases you might want to look at on the issue of admitting hospital blood samples without calling the person who drew the blood are Blackwell v. State, 2005 WL 548245 (Tex. App. - Austin 2005) & Durett v. State, 36 SW3d 205 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist] 2001, no pet).

If you are lucky your area has an officer that is DRE (Drug recognition expert) trained and certified. These officers do a series of additional test (blood pressure, light sensitivity, temperature, pupil size and dilation, etc.) based on this nationally recognized protocol they can identify drug categories and symptomology. They can also explain how things like wide open pupils might be dangerous when driving at night.

These guys are well trained and often excellent witnesses, they are also very underutilized.

ARIDE is a new training protocol that falls between SFSTs and DREs it is new, but I understand the folks in Smith County (Tyler) recently went through the training. If any of them are lurking out there they might give an opinion of that program. I hope after our statewide deal in March to go through it myself.

If you need help finding a DRE in your area contact me directly at TDCAA.

Thanks for all the input.

My arresting officer was the DRE, but she refused everything after she blew zeros and was not released. So we have SFSTs and the DRE's observations, but not the usual detailed DRE analysis.

As if regular old DWIs were too easy....!! I have suppression on the case today and then it will probably get set for trial. Thanks again.