State v. Millett - Blood Toxicology Decision

 There was a useful decision out of the court of appeals regarding toxicologist testimony and the foundation necessary for them to testify. 

In State v. Millett the defendant was arguing that not having the scientist present that did some initial preliminary testing present and also not having the person that calibrated the equipment used to test violated the defendant's right to cross examination. 

The toxicologist testified unequivocally that the preliminary testing would not have any impact on the confirmation tests, and therefore, would not impact the ultimate results. The Court of Appeals held that the lack of the two witnesses the defendant was demanding to cross examine would at best go to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. 

This is not a groundbreaking holding, but it is helpful if anyone encounters similar arguments we often get when defendants are challenging everything and the kitchen sink in DUI related cases. There is also some relevant case law for traffic stops and PC for arrest as well in the opinion. 

You can read the full opinion here: State v Millett

Saving Statute and Drugged Driving Recodification

 The Utah Supreme Court recently issued a ruling on an important issue for driving with a measurable controlled substance (DMCS) cases. To understand the court's decision, we have to understand how we got here. 

Prior to 2022, Utah had multiple areas of the code where a person could be charged when operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and causing serious bodily injury or death. The level of the offense was different based upon the substance, and could be somewhat confusing as to what level of offense to charge and which section of the code is appropriate. In the 2022 legislative session, a group of stakeholders set out to simply and consolidate all these offenses into clear and consistent code sections centrally located together. 

This effort was not controversial and was supported across the board by stakeholders, including prosecutors and defense attorneys. The intent was not to decriminalize any behavior. The goal was simply to put all the similar statutes in the same code sections and make penalties consistent across the board. 

This brings us to State v. Cooke. Cooke was charged with an offense in 2016 under the old code sections. Due to several continuances and delays, mostly due to the defense counsel requests and then covid, the case proceeded beyond the 2022 statutory change/consolidation. Cooke argued that his case must be dismissed because the crime he was charged with originally no longer existed. 

The state argued that Utah's "saving statute" applied and the prosecution could proceed under the old statute, even though it had been repealed. The Supreme Court wisely determined in the state's favor. This was an important decision as it holds up all cases filed prior to the 2022 change which was more akin to a recodification than a repeal of the statute. This case will be important if anyone tries to make a similar challenge to Cooke. 

You can view the entire opinion here: State v. Cooke.