State v. Geirrod Detloph Stark
157 Idaho 29
Idaho Ct. App.2013Background
- Stark was convicted of driving under the influence of drugs or an intoxicating substance under Idaho Code § 18-8004(a)(1).
- A law enforcement officer observed Stark make an illegal right turn, drive briefly the wrong way on a one-way street, and stop at a gas station where he conducted a traffic stop.
- Stark appeared impaired: slurred speech, head drooped, pinpoint pupils, and difficulty keeping eyes open; he failed field sobriety tests.
- A breath test showed no alcohol; a blood draw yielded Carboxy-THC, a marijuana metabolite, and toxicology indicated past marijuana use.
- The State relied on officer observations, the stop recording, and the toxicology report; Stark testified he was not intoxicated and had various medical conditions, including recent hospitalization and psychiatric treatment.
- The magistrate found Stark’s impairment existed but did not prove impairment was caused by marijuana or another drug; the district court affirmed, and on appeal the Idaho Court of Appeals reversed, vacating the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove Stark was under the influence of drugs under § 18-8004(a)(1)? | Stark | Stark | No; impairment alone was insufficient to prove drug-induced impairment. |
| Does Carboxy-THC prove current intoxication at the time of driving? | State | Stark | No; Carboxy-THC is a metabolite indicating past use, not current intoxication. |
| Did the State prove a causal link between past marijuana use and present impairment? | State | Stark | No; evidence failed to connect past use to impairment while driving. |
| Was the officer’s testimony about appearance and DRE-related conduct admissible to prove intoxication? | State | Stark | No; such testimony did not constitute a substantive expert conclusion of intoxication. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinett, 141 Idaho 110 (2005) (impaired driving requires impairment plus causation by intoxicants)
- State v. Schmoll, 144 Idaho 800 (Ct. App. 2007) (totality of evidence standard for DUI proof)
- State v. Barker, 123 Idaho 162 (Ct. App. 1992) (totality of evidence; impairment plus cause)
- State v. Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 (1991) (lay observations of impairment admissible; but not dispositive without causal link)
- Reisenauer v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 145 Idaho 948 (2008) (carboxy-THC is a metabolite; not equal to THC; requires connection to impairment)