Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph Cooperman
232 Ariz. 347
| Ariz. | 2013Background
- Joseph Cooperman was charged with two DUI counts: (A)(1) impaired to the slightest degree and (A)(2) per se (BrAC or BAC ≥ .08 within two hours).
- The State planned to introduce Cooperman’s breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) only to prove the (A)(2) per se offense and said it would not rely on the statutory presumption of impairment under A.R.S. § 28-1381(G)(3).
- Cooperman sought to introduce the BrAC plus expert evidence about variability in the breath-to-blood partition ratio to challenge that he was impaired for the (A)(1) charge.
- The State moved to exclude partition-ratio evidence; the municipal court admitted it as relevant to impairment, the superior court denied relief, and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether partition-ratio evidence is relevant and admissible to rebut impairment when the State introduces BrAC only for the (A)(2) charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of partition-ratio evidence when State introduces BrAC only for (A)(2) | State: Partition-ratio evidence is irrelevant if State declines the (G)(3) presumption and uses BrAC solely for per se charge | Cooperman: Partition-ratio and BrAC evidence are relevant to show lack of impairment under (A)(1) because BrAC→BAC conversion affects inference of impairment | Court: Evidence of partition-ratio variability is relevant and may be admissible to rebut impairment |
| Relevance absent individualized physiologic proof | State: General-population partition data lacks foundation to show defendant’s impairment | Cooperman: General variability can create reasonable doubt about relation between BrAC and impairment | Court: Population variability can be relevant to undermine the BrAC→impairment inference |
| Exclusion under Ariz. R. Evid. 403 (confusion, prejudice, waste) | State: Introducing conversion evidence will confuse jurors, waste time, and unfairly prejudice the per se charge | Cooperman: Jury instructions can limit use; probative value outweighs those risks | Court: No abuse of discretion in admitting; trial court may reassess 403 at trial if warranted |
| Expert foundation under Ariz. R. Evid. 702 | State: Experts must tie ratio evidence to sufficient facts/data about this defendant | Cooperman: (argued) general scientific evidence suffices to raise doubt | Court: Rule 702 challenge not addressed on appeal because State raised it late; court declined to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Guthrie v. Jones, 202 Ariz. 273, 43 P.3d 601 (App. 2002) (breath alcohol evidence not dispositive of impairment; impairment results from alcohol in blood and brain)
- State v. Childress, 78 Ariz. 1, 274 P.2d 333 (1954) (recognizing correlation between blood alcohol concentration and sobriety)
- People v. McNeal, 210 P.3d 420 (Cal. 2009) (partition-ratio evidence—both general and personal—admissible to challenge impairment inference)
- State v. Hanks, 772 A.2d 1087 (Vt. 2001) (excluding partition-ratio evidence was reversible error; variability relevant to undermine impairment inference)
- State v. Hardy, 230 Ariz. 281, 283 P.3d 12 (2012) (standard of review for admissibility: abuse of discretion)