State v. Nugent, 2014 Vt. 4

On Oct. 6, 2012, Nugent crashed his truck; he told officers he had one beer earlier and none shortly before the crash; officer observed moderate impairment.
A hospital blood test at 9:19 p.m. (about >2 hours after driving) showed BAC 0.137%.
State initiated a civil license-suspension proceeding; because test was >2 hours after operation, State relied on expert "relation-back" calculations to estimate BAC at time of driving.
State expert calculated a BAC of 0.172% at time of operation using an assumed alcohol elimination rate of 0.015% per hour; defendant challenged admissibility/reliability under V.R.E. 702 and moved for judgment as a matter of law.
Trial court admitted the expert’s evidence under the liberal civil-suspension rules but found the expert’s relation-back opinion unreliable because she provided no scientific basis for applying 0.015/hr to this individual and failed to quantify likelihood that BAC was ≥0.08 at time of driving; court granted defendant judgment as a matter of law.
State appealed, arguing the evidence met the preponderance standard; the Supreme Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s factual finding that the expert’s opinion lacked sufficient reliability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved by preponderance that Nugent’s BAC was ≥0.08 at time of operation via relation-back evidence	Expert’s back-calculation (using 0.015%/hr elimination) showed BAC 0.172%, so preponderance met	Expert’s method speculative; elimination rates vary and 0.015%/hr not shown reliable for this individual	Court affirmed: State did not meet burden because expert failed to show a scientifically reliable basis for the assumed elimination rate in this case
Standard of review for trial-court reliability finding	State: question of law, review de novo	Defendant: factual finding, review for clear error	Trial court’s reliability finding is factual and reviewed for clear error; not clearly erroneous here
Admissibility of expert relation-back testimony in civil-suspension hearings	State: testimony admissible and prima facie under statute and civil rules	Defendant: testimony insufficient under V.R.E. 702 without individual-specific basis	Trial court correctly admitted testimony under liberal civil rules but properly weighed reliability and found evidence insufficient
Whether court should have reopened evidence to cure gaps	State: could have supplied further proof	Defendant: gaps fatal to State’s case	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying reopening; decision rests on merits and sufficiency of evidence

State v. Spooner, 60 A.3d 640 (Vt. 2012) (treats reliability and accuracy of chemical tests as factual matters for the trier of fact)