Plano DWI Lawyer Blog

In my career as a trial atttorney I have tried many cases in which my client was accused of being intoxicated due to some substance other than alcohol.  Recently, I tried a DWI case to a jury in which my client struck a police cruiser with her car in broad daylight and admitted to the use of prescription meds.  At trial, the State attempted to introduce evidence that my client was intoxicated due to prescription drugs.  I successfully argued to the judge  that there was no evidence that the drug analysis was performed with a scientifically valid technique.  Further, and even more importanly, I argued that there was no evidence that drug analysis in question was even performed on my client, as opposed to some other person. 

Fortunately for my client, the judge understood the law and refused to allow the jury to hear scientific evidence in the absence of any showing whatsoever.  The jury returned a Not Guilty verdict quickly.

In the case of Layton v. State of Texas, Mr. Layton was not so lucky, at least at the trial level. Layton's attorney objected to testimony concerning his client's use of prescription drugs arguing that in the absence of scientific evidence demonstrating its relevance to Layton's alleged intoxication, the jury should not hear the evidence.  The judge disagreed and allowed the jury to hear the evidence.  The jury convicted Mr. Layton. 

On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and held that the testimony was not relevant to the issue of intoxication in the absence of scientific evidence establishing its relevance.  Layton should be a good case to rely upon in arguing to courts that police testimony concerning my client's dug use should be excluded from court.