State v. Heider
101 So. 3d 1025, 12 La.App. 3 Cir. 52, 2012 WL 4774866 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Louisiana, a trial court's factual finding that a defendant was 'under the influence' of a controlled substance for vehicular homicide, based on expert testimony regarding drug levels and the defendant's chronic user status, will be upheld on appeal if supported by sufficient evidence under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. A criminal defendant waives their Sixth Amendment right to confront a laboratory analyst if they fail to subpoena the analyst for trial pursuant to state statute, even if an objection was made at a pre-trial Daubert hearing.
Facts:
- On November 1, 2008, Paul David Heider ran a stop sign in Alexandria.
- Heider's vehicle struck another car in which a pregnant victim was riding.
- The collision resulted in the death of the pregnant victim and her unborn child.
- Blood tests of Heider revealed 1.1 nanograms per milliliter of marijuana and 27.6 nanograms per milliliter of a marijuana metabolite (carboxyl derivatives).
Procedural Posture:
- Paul David Heider was charged in the trial court with vehicular homicide and third-degree feticide.
- The trial court conducted a Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence for use at trial.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found Paul David Heider guilty on both counts.
- Heider was sentenced to five years at hard labor for vehicular homicide and a consecutive term of five years at hard labor for third-degree feticide.
- Heider sought review by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, assigning five errors.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a trial court's finding that a defendant was "under the influence" of marijuana for vehicular homicide, based on its assessment of conflicting expert testimony regarding drug levels and chronic use, constitute sufficient evidence for conviction; and is a defendant's confrontation right waived if they object to lab testimony at a pre-trial hearing but fail to subpoena the analyst for trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Decuir, Judge
No, the trial court did not err; the evidence was sufficient to find Paul David Heider guilty of vehicular homicide and feticide, and his confrontation rights were waived or any error was harmless. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Paul David Heider was "under the influence" of marijuana for vehicular homicide. The trial judge, as the fact-finder, weighed the expert testimony regarding the levels of marijuana found in Heider's blood and the debate over whether such levels indicated impairment if Heider were a "chronic user." The judge concluded that Heider was not a chronic user and that the drug levels indicated impairment. The appellate court, applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, found that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Heider was guilty. The court noted that even if the trial court implicitly placed a burden on Heider to prove he was a chronic user, convictions are upheld when overall evidence supports it. For feticide, Dr. Stephen Norman's testimony established the accident caused the deaths of the victim and her unborn child. Regarding the Confrontation Clause, the court held that Heider waived his right to confront the lab analyst (Dr. Kriger) who did not personally perform the tests. Heider's objection at the pretrial Daubert hearing was invalid because confrontation rights do not apply to pretrial hearings (State v. Harris). Heider failed to subpoena the appropriate analyst for trial, as required by La.R.S. 15:501, thereby waiving his right under State v. Simmons. As for the admission of defense witness Dr. Plotnick's Daubert hearing testimony at trial, the court found any potential error to be harmless, applying the Chapman v. California harmless error analysis via Delaware v. Van Arsdall. Dr. Plotnick was Heider's own witness, and his testimony was at worst unhelpful and did not cause particular prejudice to the defense. Finally, the court found the sentences were not excessive. Despite Heider's remorse, his two prior DUI convictions justified the maximum sentence for third-degree feticide. The trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences for vehicular homicide (minimum five years) and feticide (maximum five years), resulting in a ten-year total, was justified by Heider's prior record and the taking of two lives from a single act, falling within the court's discretion under La.Code Crim.P. art. 883.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant deference appellate courts give to trial court factual findings, particularly concerning expert testimony and witness credibility under the Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency of evidence. It provides crucial clarification on the procedural requirements for preserving Confrontation Clause rights in Louisiana, emphasizing that statutory subpoena procedures for lab analysts must be followed for trial, irrespective of pre-trial objections. The ruling also illustrates the application of harmless error analysis to Confrontation Clause violations when the prejudice is minimal and reinforces judicial discretion in sentencing, especially for repeat offenders or crimes involving multiple victims.
