PA Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony on Prescription Drugs in DUI

Burton A. Rose, Esq.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has decided the case of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Michelle Necole GRIFFITH, Appellee, 2011 WL 5176800, No. 56 MAP 2010 (Nov. 2, 2011), an appeal from a ruling of the Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Griffith, 985 A.2d 230 (Pa.Super.2009), No. 1315 MDA 2008, dated July 2, 2009, which reversed a Judgment of Sentence of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP–06–CR–0003318–2006 dated June 25, 2008. This case was before Justices CASTILLE, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, and ORIE MELVIN. Justice McCaffery wrote the Opinion for the full court.

The issue presented in this case was whether expert testimony is required to convict a defendant of driving under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2), when the drugs in question are prescription medications. The Court declined to read into subsection 3802(d)(2) a mandatory requirement for expert testimony to establish that the defendant’s inability to drive safely was caused by ingestion of a drug, even if it is a prescription drug, or drug combination. Under the general impairment provision set forth in subsection 3802(a)(1), a blood or breath test to determine alcohol level is not required; rather, a different standard is used, i.e., imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such that one is rendered incapable of safely driving.

In this case, the Appellee drove her vehicle when she was incapable of safely driving; this element was not before the court. The only question was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellee’s inability to drive safely was the result of the influence of a drug or combination of drugs. At trial, an experienced police officer testified that he closely observed Appellee’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 Appellee’s blood. Appellee admitted taking one prescription medication in the morning of the day of her arrest. Two other Schedule IV controlled substances, to wit, Valium and a related metabolite, were detected in her blood. Therefore, the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellee violated subsection 3802(d)(2), and the ruling of the Superior Court was reversed.

Attorney Jill M. Scheidt of Rabenold Koestel Scheidt of Wyomissing represented the Appellant. John B. Mancke, Esq. appeared for the PA Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae.

Click to download Opinion Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Griffith

Back to Index Page»