Drug Evidence "Harmless" in Light of Multiple DUI Tests
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 24, 2017
Criminal Criminal DUI-DWI Criminal Misdemeanor
Summary: Blog post about the admissibility of different types of evidence in DUI cases.
For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
In the case of State v. Gilligan, a DUI case, the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding a chemical analysis concerning cocaine found in the driver’s urine, as the report of the test result was not timely provided to the driver as required by Connecticut law, however, the error was harmless because the evidence was cumulative and there was substantial, properly admitted evidence of the driver’s intoxication.
At approximately 8:25 p.m. on December 29, 2011, a sergeant with the state police was patrolling Route 32 in Stafford, he noticed a vehicle swerving back and forth within a lane of travel and crossing the double yellow line. The sergeant stopped the vehicle, which the defendant was driving. The defendant was talking rapidly, her eyes were red and watery, and her pupils were "very dilated." Upon moving his flashlight toward her eyes, the sergeant noticed that the driver’s pupils were "very slow to constrict" and did so "only very slightly," which indicated to the sergeant that the driver was possibly under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant. The sergeant detected the odor of alcohol on the driver’s breath and asked the driver if she had been drinking. The driver responded that she had consumed one drink prior to operating the vehicle. The sergeant asked the driver if she would submit to field sobriety tests, and he noticed that the driver was not very stable when exiting her car. The sergeant performed three field sobriety tests on the driver: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test; the one leg stand test; and the walk and turn test. The driver was not able to perform any of the three tests to standard. The sergeant placed the driver under arrest.
The evidence was sufficient to support driver’s conviction as a second time offender as the State presented overwhelming evidence that she was the same person who had been previously convicted of DUI, including evidence that she had the same date of birth, social security number, and driver's license number as the previously convicted person.
Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Source: State v. Gilligan, 164 Conn. App. 406, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 133 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016)