252 P.3d 211
Okla. Crim. App.2010Background
- Appellant Mark Stephen Anderson was convicted by jury of Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in Stephens County, case CF-2008-270.
- Jury recommended 10 years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine; sentence imposed consecutively to another Stephens County conviction (CF-2005-303).
- Defense challenged chain of custody, sufficiency of the evidence, use of an expired drug-testing kit, and admissibility of HGN testimony, among other claims.
- Trial record included blood test results following a blood draw within a two-hour window of arrest per statutory provisions; blood testing procedures were challenged on various grounds.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals conducted plain-error review and standard sufficiency review, ultimately denying relief on all propositions and affirming the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chain of custody sufficiency | Anderson argues improper chain of custody invalidates blood evidence. | State contends record supports admission and weight is for jury. | No plain error; sufficient chain of custody established; blood evidence admissible. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for DUI (Drugs) | Evidence insufficient to prove DUI elements. | Evidence viewed in prosecution’s light supports elements beyond reasonable doubt. | Rational trier could find elements proven beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Admissibility of HGN testimony without expert foundation | HGN results require scientific foundation/expert testimony. | HGN is a field sobriety test; deputies laid proper foundation; no scientific requirement. | Admission not reversible; proper foundation via deputies; not scientific evidence. |
| Jury instruction burden shifting | Instruction 7 improperly shifts burden. | Instruction tracks statute and OUJI-CR; not impermissibly burden-shifting. | No plain error; instruction proper. |
| Overall trial fairness claims (other propositions) | Prosecutorial misconduct, vagueness challenge, other-crimes evidence, double jeopardy concerns. | No reversible error; no cumulative error. | No reversible or cumulative error; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alverson v. State, 983 P.2d 498 (1999 OK CR 21) (purpose of chain of custody rule; admissibility)
- Easlick v. State, 90 P.3d 556 (2004 OK CR 21) (sufficiency standard for DUI elements)
- Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (1985 OK CR 132) (standard for sufficiency after reviewing evidence)
- Yell v. State, 856 P.2d 996 (1993 OK CR 34) (HGN as field sobriety test; admissibility foundation)
- Bartell v. State, 881 P.2d 92 (1994 OK CR 59) (Daubert/Frye applicability to field tests; not applicable)
- Torres v. State, 962 P.2d 3 (1998 OK CR 40) (non-scientific basis for field tests)
- Dungan (Appeal of Dungan), 681 P.2d 750 (1984 OK 21) (testimony timing sufficiency for breath tests)
- Warden v. State, 499 P.2d 937 (1972 OK CR 41) (breath test timing admissibility)
- Williams v. State, 22 P.3d 702 (2001 OK CR 9) (evidentiary decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Lott v. State, 98 P.3d 318 (2004 OK CR 27) (no plain error in cumulative error analysis)
- Head v. State, 146 P.3d 1141 (2006 OK CR 44) (plain-error review for vagueness challenges)