Are the Effects of a Prescription Drug the Proper Subject of Judicial Notice?

Suppose that David Defendant is charged with driving while impaired based upon an incident on in which he drove his car off the road and crashed into a tree.  The arresting officer testifies at trial that Defendant was unsteady on his feet at the scene of the accident and that she saw no signs of a head injury.  Defendant was arrested and consented to withdrawal of a blood sample for analysis.  The State notified Defendant on AOC-CR-344 of its intent to introduce as evidence at trial without the testimony of the chemical analyst an SBI laboratory report reporting the results of an analysis of his blood.  Defendant did not object to introduction of the report. At trial, the State introduced the report, which states that analysis of Defendant’s blood “confirmed the presence of the following substance:  carisoprodol.” The district court judge presiding over the case has heard testimony regarding impairment from carisoprodol in previous cases.  She knows that this is the generic name for the drug marketed as Soma.  She has heard testimony in previous trials that this drug can cause drowsiness, dizziness and vertigo.  The State, however, offers no evidence in Defendant’s trial to connect carisoprodol with the behavior observed by the arresting officer at the scene of the crash.  At the close of the State’s evidence, Defendant moves to dismiss the state’s case for insufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the State has not shown a link between Defendant’s balance issues and the drug detected in his blood. May the [...]