Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
Evidence of other drug use not alleged in DUI charge excluded because of prejudicial effect
December 12, 2008
Topic: Criminal
Florida DUI laws allow for a person to be found gulit if they are under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled substance to the extent that their normal faculities are impaired. Jurys in Jacksonville, Green Cove, Yulee and St. Augustine are generally known to convict more often in cases involving drugs than alcohol. Therefore, it is hard to defend cases where the DUI allegations involve drugs. However, a court recently gave Defendant's some protection in these types of cases.
In Justin Estrich v. State of Florida, (33 Fla. L. Weekly D2726b), Estrich was charged with DUI manslaughter after being involved in a serious traffic accident. The charge was based entirely on the defendant's ingestion of prescription Xanax. While searching the car, the police recovered a bottle that contained a small amount of marijuana. The results of a blood test showed that Estrich had the marijuana metabolite in his blood but experts testified that it would not have played a role in the accident. Before trial, Estrich moved to sever the marijuana evidence from the driving offense and the exclusion of testimony about the marijuana metabolite in his blood contending that such evidence was unfairly prejudicial. Estrich argued that the jury could see evidence of marijuana in the car and the metabolite in his blood as additional support for his impairment. The trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, the court determined that evidence of a metabolite in the blood could be prejudicial. The court reasoned that relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. § 90.402, Fla Stat. (2007). Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a material fact. §90.401, Fla Stat. (2007). The presence of the marijuana metabolite, if relevant, was only barely so. The material fact at issue was the defendant's impairment at the time of the crash. All the expert testimony at trial stated that the marijuana probably did not affect him at the time of the collision. On the scale of relevancy, such tenuous probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. The evidence of marijuana metabolites in the defendant's blood raised the spectre of illegal drug use, a fertile source of prejudice in the eyes of the jury.
The court also found that the trial court erred in not severing the possession of marijuana charge. Under the Florida Rules for Criminal Procedure 3.152 (a)(2)(A), severance is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense. Preventing improper joinder is important because evidence relating to each of the crimes may have an effect of bolstering the proof of the other. The testimony in one case standing alone may be sufficient to convince a jury of the defendant's guilt, evidence that the defendant may have also committed another crime can have the effect of tipping the scales.
Evidence presented at trial indicated that the marijuana did not contribute to Estrich's impairment. Allowing the jury to hear that the defendant possessed marijuana had a prejudicial effect on the trial of the manslaughter charge. Because there was a significant risk that the evidence of the defendant's possession of an illegal drug would bolster the state's contention that yet another drug impaired the defendant's ability to drive, the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance.
This ruling is important because it shows that the state will attempt to introduce any evidence that had a tendency to prove a material fact of the case. This ruling shows that only relevant evidence should be admitted so that the defendant is not unfairly prejudiced during trial.
We will continue to monitor changes and clarification in Criminal Law. Our experienced, skilled DUI defense attorney at the Arnold Law Firm can protect your rights with swift, thorough and responsive representation.
