 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ireland1/21/2005
(For Official Publication)
Defendant Jeffrey Don Ireland appeals his conviction of unlawful possession or use of a controlled substance, a third degree felony. See Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (2002). Defendant alleges that the trial court misinterpreted the meaning of "consumption" under Utah Code section 58-37-2(1)(dd). Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-2(1)(dd) (2002). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2001, while driving a car in Salt Lake County, Defendant hit another vehicle, resulting in the death of its driver. While at a hospital following the accident, West Valley Police Officer Buchanan observed Defendant exhibiting what he regarded as symptoms of a person under the influence of a narcotic: constricted pupils, dry mouth, muscle tremors, deliberate, short sentences, and an unsteady gait. On this basis, Officer Buchanan obtained a search warrant to test Defendant's blood and urine for controlled substances. Notwithstanding the absence of any narcotic in Defendant's urine samples, Defendant's blood tested positive for marijuana and 0.1 mcg/ml of methamphetamine.
While the presence of controlled substances was detected in Defendant's blood, he did not have any paraphernalia or drugs packaged for use with him. Despite this, the State charged Defendant with unlawful possession or use of a controlled substance for the methamphetamine, a third degree felony, and driving with a measurable controlled substance in the body for the marijuana, a class B misdemeanor.
In a pretrial ruling, the court determined that it had jurisdiction over the possession or use of a controlled substance charge. The trial court concluded that "'consumption' continued so long as the methamphetamine was being metabolized in efendant's body." Furthermore, the trial court reasoned that, because Defendant was metabolizing the methamphetamine before, during, and after the accident, his unlawful possession or use of a controlled substance was committed at least partly within this state, and thus established jurisdiction. Defendant then pleaded guilty to both charges, but reserved the right to appeal the trial court's jurisdiction regarding the felony charge.
ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendant presents two arguments in support of his contention that the trial court misinterpreted the possession or use statute. First, he asserts that the plain meaning of "consumption," as used in section 58-37-2(1)(dd) does not include a substance being metabolized in the body. Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-2(1)(dd). Second, he argues that the trial court violated his right to due process by improperly shifting the burden to him to show that the substance found in his blood was not consumed in Utah.
Both of Defendant's arguments hinge on his assertion that the trial court misinterpreted the statutory meaning of "consumption." As such, " he proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review for correctness, according no deference to the [judge's] legal conclusion." State v. Redd, 1999 UT 108, , 992 P.2d 986.
ANALYSIS
I. Plain Meaning of "Consumption" Under Section 58-37-2(1)(dd)
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that it had jurisdiction over the felony charge, determining that "consumption," as included in the definition of possession or use of a controlled substance under section 58-37-2(1)(dd), is an ongoing process in which the body physiologically metabolizes the substance. Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-2(1)(dd). This issue presents a question of first impression in Utah.
"When interpreting a statute, this court looks first to the statute
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|