State v. Osteen:  Court of Appeals Approves Admission of Lay and Expert Opinion Testimony Regarding Drug Impairment

Proving that a driver was impaired by alcohol is not all that difficult, particularly when the driver submits to a breath test and the result is .08 or more.  Proving that a driver was impaired by drugs or by a combination of alcohol and drugs is considerably more challenging. But an opinion released yesterday by the court of appeals demonstrates one way in which it can be done, even without a confirmatory chemical test. The case is State v. Osteen, No. COA 15-546 (March 1, 2016).  The opinion is unpublished, but is nevertheless worth a read given the paucity of case law in the area of drugged driving. Facts. The defendant in Osteen was driving a moped at 2 a.m. when she was pulled over by a sheriff’s deputy who noticed that the moped had no taillight and who saw it weave several times within its lane. When the defendant lifted the visor on her helmet, the deputy smelled alcohol. The defendant said she had wine with dinner. The deputy then asked her if she owned the moped. Her response? “'12 midnight.'” Not surprisingly, the deputy suspected that she might be impaired. He contacted the State Highway Patrol. Trooper Michael Hinnenkamp responded. The defendant told Trooper Hinnenkamp that she drank three glasses of wine and took two prescription medications—Clonopin and Percocet—before driving. Hinnenkamp observed that the defendant was having trouble standing upright and that her speech was slurred and, at times, not understandable. He said she had a blank stare and appeared [...]