Defendant on meth, appellate judges on crack (apparently)
You remember that guy from Sparland who got stoned on meth, went for a spin crossed the center line on killed a mother and daughter on Christmas Day 2004? And then later admitted he had smoked some meth?
Well, he’s out of the slammer now, thanks to the convoluted logic of the 3rd District Court of Appeals.
Prosecutors cited state law that takes a “zero tolerance” approach to DUI of meth, meaning any amount found was enough to find {Aaron] Martin guilty and the fatalities were enough for the felony enhancement.
[Judge Mary] McDade and [Judge Mary K. O'Brien] 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.
The upheld upheld his misdemeanor conviction, but McDade dissented, saying prosecutors failed to prove he used meth. Apparently, the mere presence is meth in his blood it and the admission he used it was not enough. I suppose she wanted video and eyewitnesses.
And even then who knows? Maybe McDade would rule the state didn’t prove it wasn’t an alien mind control device that caused him to cross the center line.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
2nd time in a week, this kind of ruling out of McDade and O’Brien. Have they always done this or is this something new? Don’t remember reading about other bizarre rulings. In a few years, no one will be found guilty thing!
correction: no one will be found guilty of any thing
The rationale of the reversal isn’t really bizarre.
Consider the following scenario – assume that a deer jumped in front of the car being driven by the deceased and as a result that car had swerved into the oncoming lane and the collision then occurred. Assume that the defendant driver had the same level of drugs in his system and had done nothing that caused the accident apart from simply driving down the road in his lane at the time the deer caused the other car to strike him. Under the position argued by the State, the defendant still would have been guilty of the Aggravated DUI if the per se rule was applicable, without any need for there to be some proximate causation of the accident by the drugged driving.
I have no problem with people being convicted and sent to prison when their actions CAUSE the harm but I do have some issues when there need be absolutely NO CAUSATION between their wrongful actions and the harm.
The issue on this appeal really dealt with the very limited legal issue of under the DUI statute what form of proximate causation is required to be proven.
MaR, any amount of drugs in your system will produce some level of impairment. With specific drugs like alcohol the state allows for a certain level of impairment but with illegal drugs the state has decided that no level of impairment is allowable. That is the intent of the law, however these judges decided they knew better.
Bravo – ASSUMING that impairment exists (although at low levels impairment is negligible, if even existent), you still fail to address the circumstance that I described.
Additionally, the ruling has nothing to do with impairment levels but with statutory construction of the term WHEN THE VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (a) WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH. The DUI statute provides in relevant part:
“625ILCS § 11-501
(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while:…
(6) there is any amount of a drug, substance, or compound in the person’s breath, blood, or urine resulting from the unlawful use or consumption of cannabis listed in the Cannabis Control Act, a controlled substance listed in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, an intoxicating compound listed in the Use of Intoxicating Compounds Act, or methamphetamine as listed in the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act. …
(d) Aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof.
(1) Every person convicted of committing a violation of this Section shall be guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof if: …
(F) the person, in committing a violation of subsection (a), was involved in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft accident that resulted in the death of another person,
WHEN THE VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (a) WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH;”
It is a well established rule of statutory interpretation that every phrase should be assumed to have meaning and not be superfluous. So, if as the prosecution asserted, what is required for conviction is that (1st) the driver be in physical control of the vehicle (i.e. driving), (2nd) while having any amount of the prohibited substance in his system and (3rd) becoming involved in an accident resulting in the death of another, then, the language “WHEN THE VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (a) WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH” would be rendered as merely superfluous and redundant.
If the legislature intended that to be the result, all they needed do was delete the language at issue leaving the subsection to read “Every person convicted of committing a violation of this Section shall be guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof if: … (F) the person, in committing a violation of subsection (a), was involved in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft accident that resulted in the death of another person.”
The complaint lies with the legislature in its creation of the statute. The rules of statutory construction are well known. The legislature uses lawyers on its various staffs to prepare statutory language being well aware of the rules that a Court will apply.