Paradoski v. State

477 S.W.3d 342 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D left her friend's house between 11:30 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. Her friend's husband testified that D was 'fine' when D left. He did not see D take any pills. D was swerving in and out of lanes, driving her vehicle in an unsafe manner. A witness called 911 to report the erratic driving. D crashed into another vehicle. Officer Hastedt determined that D was impaired. Officer Olive determined D was intoxicated by a narcotic because he did not see any evidence D was intoxicated by alcohol. After arrival at the hospital, D had a shaky gait and was slurring her speech, but she was 'alert and oriented.' The nurse believed D was intoxicated by reason of drugs and/or alcohol and that D's behavior was consistent with someone taking hydrocodone and carisoprodol. The nurse stated that she had worked with patients who suffered from a stroke and they are not generally alert and oriented; D's behavior was 'not at all' consistent with her having a stroke. The nurse opined that an individual suffering from a TIA could not answer 'orienting questions.' The nurse stated she had never seen a TIA patient with partial symptoms. A blood draw showed D's blood contained .02 milligrams of hydrocodone per liter of blood, greater than 15 milligrams per liter of blood of carisoprodol, and greater than 40 milligrams per liter of blood of meprobamate, which is a metabolite of carisoprodol. D was charged with the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. Hydrocone is a narcotic painkiller. The side-effects of this drug include slurred speech and slowed motor skills. Carisopodol is a muscle relaxant. Carisoprodol's side-effects include slurred speech, drowsiness, dizziness, and depressed motor skills. P's expert testified that an individual with the levels of hydrocodone and carisoprodol present in D's system could lose mental and physical faculties. The State's toxicologist could not discern from the lab results alone whether appellant suffered the loss of her mental and physical faculties and therefore the State's toxicologist could not render an opinion on that subject. D's expert testified that the amount of hydrocodone and carisoprodol in D's blood could cause an individual to become impaired. He explained that both of these drugs have 'similar side effects,' and when the drugs are taken together, those effects 'will be additive.' D's expert toxicologist testified that a person could take both drugs and have the normal use of mental and physical faculties 'with chronic therapy.' D's expert testified that although these drugs 'were more than the minimum amount to produce an effect, they were not in the toxic range.' D filled the prescriptions for hydrocodone and carisoprodol inconsistently. D toxicologist testified that carisoprodol has a half-life of about ninety minutes, and it takes five times that amount of time to eliminate the drug. The half-life of meprobomate is ten to fifteen hours, and it takes about five times that length for the meprobomate to be eliminated. The half-life for hydrocodone is ten hours, so it takes about five times that to eliminate hydrocodone. The expert explained that the level of hydrocodone in a person's system changes slowly. D also presented an expert neurologist who testified that D suffered a TIA and the TIA caused her to be impaired. A jury convicted her and the trial court sentenced her to 180 days' confinement and ordered eighteen months of community supervision. D appealed.