|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. TRUSLEY
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
TROY HAMILTON TRUSLEY, Appellant.
No. 28970-2-III.
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three.
Filed: July 12, 2011.
Susan Marie Gasch, Gasch Law Office, Po Box 30339, Spokane, WA, 99223-3005, Counsel for Appellant(s).
Andrew Kelvin Miller, Benton County Prosecutors Office, 7122 W Okanogan Pl Bldg A, Kennewick, WA, 99336-2359.
Terry Jay Bloor, Benton County Prosecutors Office, 7122 W Okanogan Pl, Kennewick, WA, 99336-2359, Counsel for Respondent(s).
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONSIDDOWAY, J. Troy Hamilton Trusley was convicted of vehicular assault after striking and injuring a bicyclist with his car. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred by considering blood test results indicating that methamphetamine was present in his system at the time of the collision because the State never established that an enzyme poison was present in the blood sample. He also argues that the charging information failed to specify each element of the crime and that the waiver of his jury trial right was not knowingly and voluntarily made. We reject his challenges and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDAt approximately 9 a.m. on March 9, 2009, Cindy Goulet was riding her bike westbound on Columbia Park Trail in Kennewick when Troy Trusley struck her from behind with his car. As a result of the collision, Ms. Goulet suffered a concussion and injuries to her ribs and right shoulder. The responding police officer performed a breath test on Mr. Trusley that indicated no alcohol was present in his system, but suspecting from Mr. Trusley's behavior that he was impaired, the officer asked for assistance from a department drug recognition expert. Officer Chris Bennett responded and concluded from field sobriety tests that Mr. Trusley was under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant such as methamphetamine. He obtained a telephonic warrant and a blood draw was performed at a nearby hospital. The blood screen tested positive for amphetamines and later for 0.3 milligrams per liter of methamphetamine. A level of 0.3 milligrams per liter is substantially higher than a therapeutic level of methamphetamine, which would be between 0.02 milligrams per liter to about 0.05 milligrams per liter.1 Vehicular assault charges were filed in May 2009. On January 14, 2010, Mr. Trusley appeared before the trial court with his attorney and filed a signed waiver of his right to a jury trial. Mr. Trusley was questioned by the court as to whether he understood the importance of the right he was relinquishing and whether he had discussed the decision with his attorney; he responded that he understood the consequences of such a waiver. The court granted his request to proceed without a jury and a bench trial was conducted.
1. The State's toxicology expert testified that methamphetamine is sometimes prescribed for narcolepsy, as an appetite suppressant, or to treat attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
2. Mr. Trusley originally included a fourth assignment of error: that the trial court had failed to enter written findings and conclusions, requiring remand. The State thereafter caused findings and conclusions to be entered by the trial court. At oral argument, defense counsel withdrew that assignment of error.
3. The only statutory provision that suggests WAC 448-14-020(3)(b) might be applicable here is RCW 46.61.506(3), which provides that in vehicular assault cases "[a]nalysis of the person's blood or breath to be considered valid . . . shall have been performed according to methods approved by the state toxicologist." Title 448 WAC, entitled "State toxicologist," provides no methods for testing drugs other than alcohol.
4. RCW 46.61.522(1) provides:
"A person is guilty of vehicular assault if he or she operates or drives any vehicle:
"(a) In a reckless manner and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or
"(b) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502, and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or
"(c) With disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another."
5. The photographs are also not a part of the record on appeal. If Mr. Trusley wishes to rely on matters outside the record, he must raise a properly supported personal restraint petition. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 338 n.5, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
|
|
|
|
|