No expert testimony needed for prescription DUI cases in criminal context.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the state does not need to present expert testimony in DUI cases where the defendant was under the influence of a prescription drug. Here, the defendant-driver had submitted blood revealing Valium and its active metabolite, although "just below and in the therapeutic concentration range," and admitted to consuming another prescription pain killer earlier in the day. The defendant-driver further exhibited physical signs of intoxication, including loss of balance. "An experienced police officer closely observed [defendant's] behavior, demeanor, unsteadiness, and inability to perform field sobriety tests, all of which led him to request laboratory tests for the detection of controlled substances in [Griffith's] blood," McCaffery said. The Supreme Court concluded that the state had met its burden of proving the defendant-driver was under the influence. It should be noted that the burden of proof by the state in criminal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a heavier burden than that required in civil matters, which generally is a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. As such, plaintiffs pursuing civil actions in similar fact patters can submit DUI evidence without incurring the cost and submitting the opinion of an expert to support such a claim.

Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012