State v. Manwaring
2011 UT App 443
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Benson Manwaring was charged with a third-degree felony DUI under Utah Code § 41-6a-502(1)(a) after a June 19, 2005 motorcycle collision in Provo.
- Officer Bascom detected a smell of alcohol and suspected drinking; Officer Jennings later conducted a DUI investigation and observed open beer cans at the scene.
- Defendant submitted to a pre-arrest portable breath test (PBT); he later agreed to sobriety tests at the hospital where a BAC of .107 was recorded on the PBT.
- A forensic nurse drew blood ~2.5 hours after the accident; lab results showed BACs of .105, .105, .106, and .107, rounded to .10.
- Defendant moved to suppress the PBT and challenged expert testimony; the court ruled the pre-arrest PBT did not violate the implied consent statute and denied suppression; conviction followed trial.
- Appellate review addressed suppression, admissibility of expert testimony, cross-examination limits, and vagueness of subsection (1)(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consent to pre-arrest PBT | Manwaring contends consent was coerced/invalid | Manwaring asserts implied coercion by police threat | Consent valid; no coercion found |
| Use of PBT for probable cause | PBT unreliable; cannot establish probable cause | PBT may aid probable cause if reliable | Merits not reached; briefing deficient; not clearly decided on the merits |
| Exclusion of expert testimony and cross-exam limits | Expert testimony necessary to prove BAC at driving time | BAC at driving time relevant; cross-exam questions valid | No abuse of discretion; testimony/cross-examination would be irrelevant to §41-6a-502(1)(a) |
| Vagueness of § 41-6a-502(1)(a) | Statute vague; may permit arbitrary enforcement | Statute provides adequate notice | Statute not unconstitutionally vague; provides notice and aligns with statutory scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tripp, 2010 UT 9 (Utah 2010) (consent analysis; two-prong test (voluntariness))
- State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31 (Utah 2006) (admission of expert testimony; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Chaves, 2002 UT App 9 (Utah App. 2002) (cross-examination limits; relevance-based restraints)
- State v. Worwood, 2007 UT 47 (Utah 2007) (clear error standard for trial court factual findings)
- State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125 (Utah 2002) (two-prong consent analysis; voluntariness factors)
- State v. MacGuire, 2004 UT 4 (Utah 2004) (notice and vagueness analysis; plain language canon)
- State v. Cruz, 1968 Utah 2d 406 (Utah 1968) (implied consent not applicable pre-arrest; prior precedent)