State of Arizona v. Cooperman
230 Ariz. 245
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cooperman was arrested in Tucson on June 20, 2010 for DUI while impaired to the slightest degree and for driving or being in actual physical control with .08+ within two hours, based on duplicate Intoxilyzer tests.
- City Court denied the state’s motion in limine to bar partition-ratio, hematocrit, breathing patterns, and RFI evidence; state sought special action relief after denial.
- Guthrie v. Jones held partition-ratio evidence admissible to challenge a breath test in an (A)(1) case but not in an (A)(2) case, and that a presumption can apply when breath results are introduced.
- The state sought review in the superior court, which denied relief; the court affirmed the city court’s ruling.
- Arizona’s statutory framework allows multiple DUI-related offenses; § 28-1381(G) creates a permissive presumption of intoxication when alcohol concentration is shown within two hours, and § 28-1381(H) allows other evidence bearing on intoxication.
- The court conducted a de novo review of statutory interpretation and evidentiary admissibility and affirmed the superior court’s decision to allow the challenged evidence under proper limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partition-ratio evidence admissible when state relies on (A)(1) presumption? | Cooperman: Guthrie allows rebuttal evidence if presumption arises | State: partition-ratio evidence not allowed if presumption not invoked | Yes; admissible to rebut presumption in (A)(1) |
| Is the (G) presumption raised whenever breath evidence shows .08 in (A)(1)? | Guthrie supports automatic presumption when breath evidence exists | State contends presumption is optional | Yes; presumption arises when breath concentration evidence is introduced |
| General partition-ratio variability admissible in (A)(1)? | Variability evidence helps negate overstatement of impairment | Evidence may confuse jury or be outweighed by prejudice | Admissible; not substantially outweighed by risk of confusion or prejudice |
| Hematocrit, breathing patterns, and breath/body temperature admissible in (A)(1) and (A)(2)? | Such factors can affect breath test accuracy and are relevant | Evidence lacks independent, case-specific basis; potential for confusion | Admissible; relevant to accuracy and reliability of breath results |
Key Cases Cited
- Guthrie v. Jones, 202 Ariz. 273 (Ariz. App. 2002) (partition-ratio evidence admissible in (A)(1); not in (A)(2); presumption discussed)
- State v. McAlvain, 104 Ariz. 445 (Ariz. 1969) (trial-court duties to instruct on general principles of law)
- State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 2006) (evidentiary gatekeeping and reliability standards under Rule 702)
- State v. Seyrafi, 201 Ariz. 147 (Ariz. 2001) (permissive presumption concept in DUI context)
- State v. Velasco, 165 Ariz. 480 (Ariz. 1990) (breath tests reliability considerations in DUI)
- State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228 (Ariz. 2004) (jury weighing of contested expert evidence)
- State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167 (Ariz. 1989) (opening briefs; argument standards)