A recent case out of the 4^th District Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of DUI / OVI and the use of prescription drugs. The case, State v. Hammond, involved a 70 year old man who was driving his vehicle after having taken several prescription drugs for a variety of ailments.

Facts

A trooper from the Ohio State Highway Patrol cited Hammond for speeding and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs of abuse (DUI / OVI). Hammond entered a not guilty plea to the charges and a trial was conducted.

The trooper stopped Hammond for speeding – going 52 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The trooper observed that Hammond’s pupils were restricted, indicating possible drug use. No evidence of alcohol consumption was observed by the trooper. The trooper proceeded to administer 4 different field sobriety tests to Hammond.

Field Sobriety Tests

On the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the trooper did not notice any clues (this test is considered the most scientifically reliable indicator of impairment).

On the Walk and Turn test, the trooper observed 7 clues:

1. Hammond began before being told to do so;
2. Moved his feet for balance;
3. Raised his arms for balance;
4. Did not walk heel-to-toe;
5. Stepped off the line eight times;
6. Made an improper turn; and
7. He stopped twice while walking.

On the One Leg Stand test, the trooper observed 4 clues:

1. Hammond lost his balance;
2. Raised his arms for balance;
3. Swayed; and
4. He put his foot down.

Finally, the trooper administered the Romberg balance test, with Hammond’s estimates for the passage of 30 seconds being off by 8 and 13 seconds.

Hammond submitted a urine sample, which disclosed that Hammond had the following drugs in his system: N-Desmethyldiazepam, Oxazepam, and Temazepam.

Trial

At trial, the trooper was not an expert on those drugs and had no personal knowledge of how the medications affected Hammond in the past. However, the trooper testified that the medications impaired Hammond’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.

In addition, the trial court was made aware that Hammond suffered from significant physical problems, including an artificial ankle, degenerative disc disease, and other ailments, and he had to walk with a cane. Moreover, Hammond’s wife testified that he took his medications daily and it did not impair his ability to drive.

However, despite the evidence to the contrary, the trial court found Hammond guilty of DUI / OVI and speeding, and sentenced Hammond accordingly. Hammond appealed the trial court’s ruling.

Prescription Drugs and DUI / OVI – The Nexus Requirement

In cases where the state relies upon evidence that the defendant has consumed prescription drugs, the state must also present some evidence of how the prescription drugs actually affect a person or how the drugs can impair a person’s judgment or reflexes. See Chillicothe v. Lunsford. The state must prove a “nexus” between the drugs ingested and the impairment to establish a violation of Ohio Revised Code(ORC) 4511.19(A)(1)(a), Ohio’s DUI / OVI statute. See State v. Husted.

If the state was permitted to prove only that a defendant had consumed a prescription drug without also showing that the prescription drug impairs judgment or reflexes, then a person taking a prescription drug would be guilty of DUI / OVI, regardless of whether the prescription drug caused impairment. Thus, the state must show that the prescription drug that was consumed is one that can impair judgment or reflexes. See ORC 4506.01(M).

How the Nexus Requirement Applies to this Case

In cases involving prescription drugs, the state can only prove DUI / OVI through the direct testimony establishing the nexus between the ingestion of the drug and its ability to impair driving by:

1. The testimony of an expert who is familiar with the potential side effects of the medication; or
2. The testimony of a person (such as a family member of friend) who witnesses the effect of the drug on the driver.

Here, the trial court relied on the trooper’s testimony regarding the prescription drugs found in Hammond’s urine sample and whether the drugs impaired Hammond’s ability to operate a motor vehicle. The state introduced no evidence qualifying the trooper as an expert familiar with the side effects of the prescription drugs in Hammond’s system. Nor did the state introduce any evidence that the trooper had personal knowledge about how those medications affected Hammond in the past.

Moreover, Hammond’s wife testified at trial that based on her observation of her husband for the past 15 years, his medications did not impair his ability to drive. Thus, her testimony did not provide sufficient evidence to support Hammond’s DUI / OVI conviction.

Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction

The 4^th District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s conviction of Hammond. The state failed to prove that the prescription drugs ingested by Hammond impaired his ability to drive. Therefore, the state failed to establish the required nexus between Hammond’s impaired condition and his ingestion of prescription drugs.

DUI / OVI Attorney – Columbus and Delaware, Ohio

If you have been charged with DUI / OVI in Columbus or Delaware, Ohio, contact Johnson Legal, LLC and speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. Attorney David Johnson of Johnson Legal, LLC will discuss your case and assist you in fighting the charges. Call (614) 987-0192 or send an email to schedule a consultation regarding your DUI / OVI case. For more information on DUI / OVI in Ohio, read Johnson Legal, LLC’s DUI / OVI Blog.