Expert testimony on effects of methamphetamine on drivers is admissible

Law Reporter, Jun 2001

EVIDENCE

People v. Bui, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 908 (Ct. App. 2001).

A California appellate court held that an expert's testimony concerning the effects of methamphetamine on a person's ability to drive safely is based on research generally accepted in the scientific community.

Here, Bui was convicted of vehicular manslaughter. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony that indicated his use of methamphetamine affected his ability to operate his vehicle safely. He argued that the expert's approach-correlating the degree of a driver's impairment with methamphetamine blood levels-is based on a new technique that is not generally accepted in the scientific community, which would make it inadmissible under California law.

Affirming, the appellate court observed that the government's expert had based his opinion on epidemiological studies he had conducted, which had resulted in two papers published in a journal after peer review. His research consisted of reviewing statistics and data on traffic accidents in which (1) methamphetamine use was involved, (2) the drivers' blood levels were tested, and (3) there were eyewitness reports of the drivers' behavior. He also reviewed laboratory studies of the effects of methamphetamine on behavior.

Epidemiological studies and reviews of existing literature are common, valid, and accepted tools of scientific research, the court said. Defendant's own expert agreed that the government's expert had used an accepted method of scientific research. The mere fact that the two experts disagreed about the conclusions drawn from that research does not make the methodology a new scientific technique, the court concluded.

Government's Counsel

Bill Lockyer, David P. Druliner, Robert RL Anderson, Carlos Martinez, and Alison Elle Aleman, all of Sacramento, Cal.