Date: 05/02/2013

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB13-1325

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment D). The motion p
Refer House Bill 13-1325, as amended, to the Commi		Pass Without Objection
PASS



02:25 PM -- House Bill 13-1325

The committee took a brief recess.


02:28 PM

The committee returned to order. Representatives Fields and Waller, co-sponsors, presented House Bill 13-1325. Current law specifies that in any prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI), driving while ability impaired (DWAI), vehicular homicide, or vehicular assault, if a driver's blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.08 or greater at the time of the offense or within a reasonable time thereafter, this fact gives rise to a permissible inference that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. This bill states that if a driver's blood contains five nanograms or more of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per milliliter in whole blood (5 ng/mL) at the time of the offense or within a reasonable time thereafter, this fact gives rise to a permissible inference that the defendant was under the influence of one or more drugs. THC is the primary psychoactive component of marijuana. DUI and DWAI are misdemeanors. Vehicular homicide is a class 3 felony if the driver was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both. Vehicular assault is a class 4 felony if the driver was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both.

In a trial for DUI or DWAI, a defendant's valid medical marijuana registry identification card may not be used as part of the prosecution's case in chief. In addition, in a traffic stop, the driver's possession of a valid medical marijuana registry identification card must not, in the absence of other contributing factors, constitute probable cause for a peace officer to require the analysis of the driver's blood.

The bill also clarifies state law to match current practice by stating that in cases of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault, if a driver's BAC was 0.08 or greater at the time of the offense or within a reasonable time thereafter, this fact gives rise to a permissible inference that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, rather than stating that it is presumed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Finally, the bill repeals the law specifying that it is a misdemeanor for a habitual user of any controlled substance to drive a motor vehicle or low-power scooter. Other references to charges of "habitual user" are also repealed.

Permissible inference. A permissible inference allows a judge to instruct a jury that if it finds that a defendant's whole blood contained at least 5 ng/mL of THC while driving or shortly thereafter, then the jury may conclude that the defendant was driving under the influence. A permissible inference does not require a jury to conclude that a defendant was driving under the influence when a THC concentration level is met. In addition, the jury may consider all of the evidence in the case to evaluate whether the prosecution has proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The following individuals testified about the bill, although the sign-in sheet was not available as part of the record:

02:33 PM -- Tom Raynes, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Raynes explained why the bill needs to be passed. He talked about public safety and the science behind impairment testing. He responded to questions from the committee about peer-reviewed research studies. He responded to questions from the committee.


02:43 PM

The committee discussed the fact that the bill has been considered three times during the present legislative session.

02:44 PM -- Matt Durkin, representing the Department of Law, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Durkin spoke about the difference between a permissible inference and a per se limit. He discussed the science of impairment testing and the number of deaths attributable to driving under the influence of marijuana. He responded to questions from the committee about the mortality statistics he provided.

02:52 PM -- Sergeant Bobby Juchem, representing the Colorado State Patrol, testified in support of the bill. Sgt. Juchem explained police procedure in a traffic stop involving suspected impaired driving.

02:54 PM -- Peg Ackerman, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, testified in support of the bill.

02:56 PM -- Teri Robnett, representing medical marijuana patients, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Robnett explained how the bill would negatively impact medical marijuana patients. She asked the committee to carve out an exception for patients. She responded to questions from the committee.

03:02 PM -- Belita Nelson, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Nelson spoke about her experience as a medical marijuana patient and asked for an exception to be carved out for medical marijuana patients.

03:06 PM -- Ronn Nixon, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Nixon expressed his opinion that current law sufficiently addresses the problem of driving under the influence. He listed his objections to the bill.
BILL:HB13-1325
TIME: 03:10:10 PM
MOVED:Court
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection.

13HseJud0502AttachD.pdf13HseJud0502AttachD.pdf
SECONDED:Lawrence
VOTE
Buckner
Court
Gardner
Lawrence
McLachlan
Murray
Pettersen
Salazar
Wright
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:HB13-1325
TIME: 03:15:16 PM
MOVED:Court
MOTION:Refer House Bill 13-1325, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 11-0.
SECONDED:Pettersen
VOTE
Buckner
Yes
Court
Yes
Gardner
Yes
Lawrence
Yes
McLachlan
Yes
Murray
Yes
Pettersen
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Wright
Yes
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS



03:17 PM

The committee adjourned.