State v. Salgado
427 P.3d 1228
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Officer on I-15 observed Miriam Salgado driving with hazard lights on at speeds well below surrounding traffic, creating a hazard; she later sped to about 65 mph and did not respond to repeated signals to pull over.
- Officer approached and ultimately stopped her after traffic stopped; Salgado was confused, had "very droopy" eyelids, and admitted taking four medications (including tramadol) that morning.
- Officer, trained as a standardized field sobriety instructor (formerly DRE), administered three sobriety tests: HGN (4 clues), walk-and-turn (6 clues), and one-leg stand (2 clues) — 12 of 18 possible clues total.
- Breath test showed no alcohol; chemical testing later detected tramadol in Salgado’s system.
- Salgado was charged with failure to respond to an officer’s signal to stop (and convicted of interference with an arresting officer) and driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI). She was convicted of DUI and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Salgado's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI (drug impairment) | State failed to prove tramadol impaired her ability to safely operate the vehicle; expert couldn’t say the level was impairing; officer lacked current DRE training and evidence was speculative | Officer’s observations (driving conduct, droopy eyelids, confusion) plus standardized field sobriety tests provided believable evidence of impairment; chemical test showed tramadol | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to submit to jury and support conviction when viewed in State’s favor |
| Preservation of sufficiency challenge | Defendant says she preserved challenge by moving for directed verdict at close of State’s case | State argued defendant did not preserve the particular sufficiency arguments on appeal | Preserved — court understood and ruled on insufficiency at trial; appellate review allowed |
| Jury Instructions 18 (list of factors) & 19 (prescription use not a defense) | Instruction 18 improperly emphasized factors tied to alcohol and overstated certain evidence; Instruction 19 could be read to bar consideration that prescribed use mitigates impairment | Instructions accurately stated law and/or were nonexclusive lists; Instruction 19 correctly explains that lawful prescription use is not a defense if impairment results | Instruction 18 error, if any, was harmless; Instruction 19 was correct; no reversible error |
| Lesser included offense — minimum-speed violation | Requested instruction because slow driving was charged alternatively | State: no rational basis in evidence to convict of minimum-speed while acquitting of DUI; reduced speed exception (necessary for safe operation) applied | Denial affirmed — evidence did not provide rational basis to convict of minimum-speed violation while acquitting of DUI (defendant’s testimony of mechanical issue undercut need for that instruction) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montoya, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2004) (directed verdict/prima facie case standard)
- State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (jury’s role in weighing credibility and sufficiency review)
- State v. Hechtle, 89 P.3d 185 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (DRE evaluation not always required; officer prudence and testing can suffice)
- State v. Powell, 154 P.3d 788 (Utah 2007) (standards for lesser included offense instruction)
- State v. Anselmo, 558 P.2d 1325 (Utah 1977) (harmlessness where instruction references absent evidence)
- State v. Drej, 233 P.3d 476 (Utah 2010) (prosecution’s burden regarding affirmative defenses once defendant raises evidence)