Traffic/DUI

Court properly granted DUI Defendant's motion to dismiss, on speedy-trial grounds, one count of DUI (BAC of 0.08 or more) which count had been filed 3 days before jury trial. Compulsory joinder applied to charges. As any delays attributable to Defendant on initial charges were not attributable to Defendant as to later-charged count, and that count was filed more than 160 days after Defendant filed speedy trial demand, count was not timely brought to trial. Original charging instrument did not give Defendant sufficient notice of subsequent new charge charge to prepare adequately for trial on that charge.(BURKE and HUDSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of failure to stop after accident involving personal injury and two counts of DUI. Court erred in admitting breathalyzer machine logbook into evidence, as State failed to lay necessary foundation as State presented no testimony that officer documented and signed logbook at time of certification of accuracy of machine or within a reasonable time thereafter. (BURKE and HUDSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated DUI and sentenced to concurrent terms of six and two years in prison. At age 16, driving at night for the first time, she crossed the center line and struck and injured a motorcyclist and killed his wife. Blood test revealed cannabis in her system. DUI statute does not violate due process or equal protection, as statute treats all persons who ingest illegal substances the same and bears rational relationship to state's legitimate interest in protecting public from drivers whose driving ability may be impaired by consuming controlled substances. It was not improper for court to consider degree of harm suffered by victim, and sentence was not an abuse of discretion. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; SCHMIDT, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated DUI. State introduced expert witness testimony on a retrograde extrapolation calculation in attempt to demonstreate the Defendant's BAC was at or above 0.08 at time of arrest. As expert acknowledged that he was unaware of many of factors necessary to determine whether Defendant was in elimination phase, and as police conducted only one BAC test, extrapolation calucation was inherently unreliable.(McLAREN and HUSDON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of aggravated DUI. Defendant's blood was drawn in hospital by certified paramedic in presence of arresting state trooper. Paramedic testified that he used DUI kit provided by ISP, and that he followed instructions for blood draw and labeling. Adequate foundation was laid to show that blood samples were collected using proper medical technique, and thus court did not err in finding that evidence of Defendant's blood-alcohol concentration was admissible. at trial. (WELCH and STEWART, concurring.)