Utah Court of Appeals
Can defendants challenge DUI intoxilyzer results with alcohol absorption evidence? State v. Preece Explained
Summary
Preece was convicted after a traffic stop for DUI, open container, and unsafe lane change violations. The trial court denied his motion to suppress and excluded evidence about alcohol absorption rates, finding a conclusive presumption applied when an intoxilyzer test showed .101 within two hours of the stop.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Preece, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified important limitations on how trial courts may treat intoxilyzer evidence in DUI prosecutions, particularly regarding defendants’ rights to present evidence challenging test accuracy.
Background and Facts
Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Denney stopped Preece after observing him leave and reenter his lane without signaling while driving significantly below the speed limit. After smelling alcohol and observing beer containers, Denney arrested Preece following field sobriety tests. An intoxilyzer test administered between 70-101 minutes after the stop showed a breath alcohol level of .101, above the legal limit of .08.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three primary issues: whether the traffic stop was constitutional, whether the information provided adequate notice of the unsafe lane change charge, and most significantly, whether Utah law creates a conclusive presumption that intoxilyzer results reflect a defendant’s alcohol level at the time of driving.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed the traffic stop, finding Trooper Denney had probable cause to stop Preece based on the witnessed traffic violation. The court also upheld the adequacy of the information, noting that citing the specific statutory subsection provided sufficient notice even without complete quotation of the statute’s language.
However, the court reversed the DUI conviction, holding that the trial court erroneously applied a conclusive presumption to the intoxilyzer results. The court emphasized that Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(2)(a)(i) prohibits driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more, not merely testing above .08. Defendants retain the right to challenge test accuracy on any relevant ground, including evidence of post-driving alcohol absorption.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces defendants’ rights to present Widmark formula evidence showing alcohol absorption between the time of driving and testing. Practitioners should ensure proper preservation of objections when courts exclude such evidence and should be prepared to offer expert testimony on alcohol metabolism rates to establish that a defendant’s actual driving-time alcohol level was below the legal limit.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Preece
Citation
1998 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 971576-CA
Date Decided
December 17, 1998
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
An intoxilyzer test result above .08 taken within two hours does not create a conclusive presumption that the defendant’s alcohol level was above .08 when driving, and defendants may challenge test accuracy on grounds including post-driving alcohol absorption.
Standard of Review
Clear error for findings of fact underlying motion to suppress; correctness for questions of law including whether facts support reasonable articulable suspicion, whether information provides sufficient notice, and statutory interpretation regarding presumptions
Practice Tip
When challenging DUI convictions based on intoxilyzer results, preserve objections to exclusion of alcohol absorption evidence and ensure expert testimony about metabolic rates is properly offered to show the defendant’s actual alcohol level at the time of driving.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.