By Ashley Chan
EL MONTE, Calif. — A DUI jury trial in El Monte Superior Court raised questions about the reliability of blood alcohol concentration testing, missing evidence and investigative procedures, as prosecutors argued the accused was impaired during a Dec. 28, 2024, crash and the defense challenged whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction.
During the trial, Judge Angel Navarro oversaw proceedings in the case of the accused, where the defense challenged the reliability of the BAC test and the investigative procedures that were used, while the prosecution argued that the accused was driving under the influence at the time of the crash.
Prosecutor Eric Soza presented evidence that the accused was driving at a high speed down a dark road, lost control of the vehicle at a sharp turn, and came to a stop in the middle of the road to sleep, remaining there until officers arrived. The accused admitted to crashing the vehicle, and officers located one beer in the passenger compartment.
Officer Metzgar testified that he administered a test showing a BAC of 0.11%. The prosecution also stated that the accused was driving 50 mph in an area described as a 10 mph zone.
Defense attorney Jason Mayland challenged the accuracy of the BAC results and the procedures used to obtain them. The defense argued that the officer used a manual testing method, which may have affected the results. He also noted that the accused was not actively blowing during the test to provide an accurate result. Mayland also pointed out that the officer who administered the official breath test did not appear in court, and therefore there was no proof presented to confirm the test was conducted properly.
The defense further argued that if the BAC results were accurate, the test should indicate when the alcohol was consumed. He stated there was no clear evidence showing whether the accused had consumed alcohol before or after driving and crashing. The defense emphasized that a conviction should not be based on a possibility.
Additional concerns were also raised about the investigation at the scene. The defense stated that officers did not ask whether the accused had consumed alcohol after driving, despite being trained to do so. It was also noted that officers did not search the entire vehicle, and there were no witnesses who came forward during the time officers were present.
Mayland also argued against the claims regarding speed and road conditions. The defense argued that the area was a dangerous corner, and the accused may not have recognized it, given that the incident occurred late at night. Testimony also indicated that the posted speed limit was 25 mph, and an officer stated he did not remember seeing a speed sign.
The defense pointed to physical evidence from the crash, noting that the airbag did not deploy and the front bumper was not significantly damaged or detached. It was also shown in the officer’s video that the vehicle’s hazard lights were turned on.
In rebuttal, Soza presented video evidence showing other vehicles making the same turn safely and that there were adequate posted warning signs for drivers. The prosecution also noted that the bumper of the vehicle was slightly detached, not fully fallen apart.
Soza argued there were no witnesses to confirm the events, and there was no clear explanation provided as to how one beer would result in the reported BAC level. The prosecution argued that the majority of the BAC could have been alcohol consumed before the accused entered the vehicle.
At the time of the hearing, the jury had not yet reached a verdict.
Tags:
