State v. Joseph B. Venable, 2023AP1367, 8/15/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court judgment convicting Venable of first offense operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of controlled substances under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), due to his use of prescription medications.
A trooper pulled Venable over after receiving four complaints of unsafe driving and observing Venable’s car go from the right lane onto the shoulder, then into the middle lane and almost collide with a truck. (¶12). Venable explained that he was tired but he seemed confused, his speech was slow and slurred, his pupils were dilated, and his body movements were “very animated.” (¶3). Venable told the trooper he had taken four prescription medications, including Adderall and paroxetine. (¶4).
After conducting field sobriety tests, the trooper arrested Venable, searched his car (finding loose and broken Adderall pills). (¶¶5-6). Venable consented to a blood draw, which revealed the presence of amphetamine and paroxetine in his blood. At a bench trial, the state’s blood analyst testified that although it is “very uncommon,” the drugs detected can interact to cause “serotonin syndrome,” which is “an excess of the chemical serotonin in the body that can have adverse complications[,]” such as sweating, shivering, uncontrollable body movements, confusion, unconsciousness and death. (¶¶7-8). The state presented no other evidence of the impairing effects of the medications.
Venable was convicted of violating § 346.63(1)(a), which provides in relevant part, “No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle while … under the influence of … a controlled substance … to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving.” The parties did not dispute that Adderall, amphetamine, and paroxetine are controlled substances. Nor did Venable contest on appeal that he was incapable of driving safely. He argued only that there was insufficient evidence that his unsafe driving was due to the influence of a controlled substance. (¶11).
The evidence to support a conviction is insufficient only if, “when viewed most favorably” to the government, the evidence “is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt” under the applicable evidentiary standard. State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990). The COA concludes that, despite the lack of direct evidence regarding the impairing effects of the specific levels of controlled substances, the evidence nevertheless permits a reasonable inference that Venable’s impairment was due to his use of a controlled substance. (¶¶16, 21).
