State v. Beck

Officer testimony regarding a defendant's marijuana consumption does not need to be excluded at trial when the basis for the charged DUII is primarily alcohol intoxication, even when the officer did not conduct a complete drug recognition evaluation.

Defendant appealed his conviction for DUII. Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his marijuana consumption. An officer saw Defendant drive out of a tavern parking lot and pulled him over when he crossed a median curb meant to prevent cars from turning that direction. The officer faintly smelled alcohol (which rendered a BAC of 0.10), and upon a field sobriety test noticed indications of controlled substance consumption. Defendant argued that the officer did not conduct a complete drug recognition evaluation, and thus his testimony regarding Defendant's marijuana use was inadmissible. The State argued that the DUII was issued for driving under the influence of alcohol, and that the marijuana contributed to the intoxication; the State's focus pertained to evidence of Defendant's alcohol intoxication. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion in limine because a complete drug recognition evaluation of Defendant's marijuana consumption was not necessary for a finding of DUII primarily based on alcohol intoxication. Affirmed.