Chicago DUI lawyer coments on a young man's drug-based DUI conviction being overturned

This Chicago DUI lawyer is heartened by the 3rd District Appellate Court's recent decision to throw out a young man's Aggravated DUI conviction based on drug usage. Alas, the decision in People v. Martin, 3-07-0263 is unpublished. I have posted here and here that in Illinois any amount of a controlled substance, e.g. marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamine is grounds for a conviction for a DUI.

July 31, Peoria, IL

By a 2-1 margin, the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Peoria County prosecutors did not prove the meth in Aaron Martin's body was the "proximate cause" of the accident. Rather, the judges held, prosecutors merely argued Martin, then 24, had methamphetamine in his body and, therefore, was guilty of aggravated DUI.

"We can hardly agree to a lesser standard of proof where the included offense is based upon mere presence of a controlled substance in the defendant's system," wrote Judge Mary K. O'Brien in an unpublished order, with Judge Mary McDade concurring. "The state must connect the presence of the methamphetamine in Martin's system to the fatalities."

Martin was involved in the accident that killed Jacqueline Harman, 75, of Washington and her daughter, Rebecca Nighsonger, 50, of Chillicothe. The two women were headed south on Illinois Route 29 just north of Chillicothe on Dec. 25, 2004, when a northbound pickup truck, driven by Martin, crossed the center line and struck their car head-on shortly after 10 p.m.

He was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to serve 85 percent of that sentence, given that there were fatalities.

During his trial, prosecutors pointed to lab reports that showed Martin had meth in his system. He also admitted using the drug at some point. His attorney, Ron Hamm, contended the amount of meth was so small it didn't meet federal testing standards. The attorney also said no one proved when his client used the drug, a factor McDade and O'Brien noted.

Prosecutors cited state law that takes a "zero tolerance" approach to DUI of meth, meaning any amount found was enough to find Martin guilty and the fatalities were enough for the felony enhancement.

McDade and O'Brien held prosecutors must connect the dots from the use of drugs to the driver impairment. Judge Vicky Wright dissented, citing a 1994 Illinois Supreme Court case that upheld the notion of a "per se" violation, or that simply having the drug in one's body was enough to find a person guilty of aggravated DUI

"Such is the nature of zero tolerance. The harsh legal consequences enacted by our lawmakers apply uniformly when another person's death proximately results from the per se driving violation," she wrote.

By a different 2-1 margin, the judges also upheld Martin's misdemeanor conviction. O'Brien and Wright held the state proved meth was in Martin's body, while McDade wrote a dissenting opinion, saying prosecutors failed to prove Martin even used meth, despite his own admission that he had and a lab report that found trace amounts of the drug.

As a result, the case now will come back to Peoria County Circuit Court for resentencing on the misdemeanor.

However, because Martin already has been in prison for more than two years, he likely will be released regardless of the sentence imposed here. Misdemeanor offenses carry a maximum of one year behind bars.

It looks like these judges were unwilling to convict simply for having trace amounts of a drug in one's system. The state must make a showing of actual impairment tied to the drug. Sometimes common sense prevails.