good morning ma'am please the court assistant attorney general michael blank in time on behalf of the people the appellate court majority in this case reversed defendant's conviction for aggravated dui on the ground that the people were required but failed to prove that the defendant's impair driving proximately cause of the death the two victims in this case a majority so held even though it recognized that evidence of impaired driving was not required to prove defendant guilty of the underlying dui driving with any amount of relationship between the underlying dui violation and the victim's deaths in this case it's undisputed that evidence of impaired driving was not required to prove defendant guilty of violating such an five on one  six he any amount of a controlled substance dui and because the offense of aggravated d y is defined with reference to that underlying dui fans whether impaired driving is relevant when you're in han the methamphetamine in his urine foreseeable resulted in the deaths of the two victims in this case so under the aggravated dui statute it's possible to have there's a whole class of cases where a defendant commits a dui violation and is involved in an accident that results in the death of another of another person but it's not always going to be the case that the defendant's act of driving for c oblique caused those deaths in this case it happened that the evidence was overwhelming that the defendant's act of  driving out of his lane of traffic into oncoming traffic and colliding head on with the victims i was both the fuck for cause of the accident and the end the legal cause because that manner of driving foreseeable results in the deaths of the two victims in this case and and the defendant's argument that our position makes the proximate cause element of the statute meaningless i think it's best refuted by a hypothetical that the trial court posit at page five twenty three of the record in that example the trial course which the facts are out of this case around so that the defendant even though he was driving with a methamphetamine in his urine he remained in his lane of traffic and obeyed all traffic and safety regulations say that you are statute and the victim's car crosses into oncoming traffic collides with the defendant's and car the victims are killed or the trial court found that in that kind of hypothetical the defendant's act of driving would not be a proximate cause of the deaths even though his driving would be a bot for cause it would not it's not foreseeable that driving in your own lane obeying all kinds of traffic and safety regulations that that manner of driving is going to cause the deaths of innocent persons to turn back to the appellate court majority's analysis not only is it inconsistent with the plain language of the statute but it also undermines the purpose of the aggravated dui statute which is to provide enhanced penalties want to do you why a violation approximately causes the death of another of another driver the general assembly was motivated to pass the dui violation at issue in this case based on its finding that it's infeasible to provide an objective measurement of  affects of different kinds of drugs on different people but the the majority the majority is rule that additional evidence of impaired driving is never the last required makes the violations of five zero one a six sensually ineligible for enhancement because of the very difficulties in proving it impairment in drug driving cases becomes the reason why such crimes cannot be enhanced to aggravated d prove the proximate cause relationship between the victim's deaths and the defendant's do you want a violation and given the express given that aggravated dui is defined with express reference to the underlying dui violation the court needs to look to the elements of that date to that underline dui violation to determine whether impaired driving is going to be a relevant issue in the aggravated dui context section five in one ev mr meaner dui statute provides for a single offense but it's an offense that can be committed six different ways as we've outlined in our appellants brief four of those violations require evidence of impaired driving and to do not and one of those and the dui violation in this case does not require proof of impaired driving as this court recognized in people versus eight five zero one a six and ak is a categorical ban on all instances of drug driving without regard to the driver's physical impairment and that statute as i mentioned a bit earlier was motivated motivated by the general somebody finding that unlike drunk driving cases where you have the the blood alcohol concentration measurement there is no similar objective tool that will provide evidence of impairment given the vast number of illegal drugs and the different way those drugs can impair different people so in this case the trial court was correct when it held that evidence of impaired driving was not required to enhance the underlying dui violations a felony to two aggravated dui instead of the focus of the proximate cause analysis was on the relationship and like to turn this point to the defendant's cross appeal the defendant argues that they that the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of the underline dui violation of driving with any amount of methamphetamine in his urine that argument should be rejected because some rational jury could have found that you have an that there is nothing fed amine in the defendant's urine and that it its presence there was attributable to the defendant's admitted use of that illegal substance other people prove through the expert testimony of  forensic toxicologist kathy anderson that defendant's urine contain methamphetamine she testified that at the third test of a three step testing protocol she pines a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that that showed the presence of methamphetamine in her urine excuse me in the defendant's urine that test was conducted with a with an instrument called a gas chromatography mass spectrometer which anderson explain provides what's basically a fingerprint s that's right the whole viewed in the light most favorable to the people kathy anderson's testimony demonstrates that the presence of methamphetamine in the defendant's urine was duped was not due to a precursor substance such as a  defendant relies on in this court and even though she was looking for all drugs of that class the only drugs she found were methamphetamine amphetamine and a drug called dental propane nomi which is an ingredient in some cold and in additional evidence to rebut the defendant's argument that the presence of methamphetamine could be explained by his ingestion of of a lawful sought substance is his admission to his best friend tiffany graham that he had used methamphetamine for tiffany graham had raised had raised money to help defendant pay off his medical bills but she had received an anonymous phone call asking how she could raise money for someone who had killed two people while on methamphetamine she she want to confront offended about that phone call and he said tiffanie i've taken crystal meth before but i wasn't on it that night in additionally he says one tiffany asks her well why am i getting this phone call i his response is well my drug test came back positive so that admission in the context in which it's made provides a date provides a reasonable inference that the defendant had defendant ingested methamphetamine  and that the the methamphetamine that the people's forensic expert found in his urine was a product of that unlawful use in time for use everything when he did it because it there was no precise time timeframe established for his last use but anderson's testimony provides somewhat of a rough time frame for understanding why for understanding why she only found methamphetamine in the defendant's urine she explained that a drug is first absorbed into the body through the blood and as it works its way through the system the last place that you'll find of the drug would be in the urine and so that's where she found methamphetamine and defend his system so taking that sort of rough time frame for how are drug courses through a body consider taking that with tiffany grams testimony about defendant's admission that well i've done nothing feder mean before but not on the night of the accident body was and was not broached at all either by the people's expert or by the defendant's expert so if there are no further questions at this point so the rest of my comments for a bottle nothing to do with this accident any trace amount of methamphetamine in the urine did not cause or even contribute to this accident the state had a chance to show that it did and instead went to great pains to avoid even attempting to make such a showing accident was the result of the defendant being tired and nothing more the state has stretched the aggravated dui statute beyond its meaning and beyond reason in an effort to exact some form of vengeance for the deaths in this case and th violation of subsection a he was involved in a motor vehicle accident that results in the death of another person when the violation was a proximate cause of the death and the state takes this statute and reads the violation language right out of it state's position would require that this court rewrite the plain language of the statute to focus only on driving throughout the proceedings the state has taken the position that it need not prove any link between the by a lation the methamphetamine in the defendant's urine and the accident the only way the state's interpretation can be upheld by rewriting the plain language of the statute in fact the state has argued that the difference between driving and driving with any amount of methamphetamine in the defendant's urine is a distinction without a difference when it comes to consideration of this statute yet looking at the plain language of the statute it is the this thinking that makes it world of difference the plain language refers to the violation  includes the presence of math in the defendant's system here in the urine and the violation has to proximate be approximate cause of the accident so without showing that there's any link between the methamphetamine in the accident and the resulting thoughts the state hasn't made that system and then while driving when meth of his system he caused the death of two people right right so you so you violation of driving with the meth was a why would you say that there would not be approximate cause of the problem in it it reads out though the violation part because it's just the driving here that is the proximate cause or is just the act of trying it with or without the man so there has to be a link under the plain language of the statute referring to the violation the violation including math in the system has to be approximate cause the legislature faced it as a violation encompassing all of that the substance in the individual system the state is reading that out of the plain language if the legislature had intended it to be just the act of driving that be the proximate cause the legislature could have worded the statute differently more simply and had and could have said so in any number of different ways in talking about proximate cause the legislature could have simply said the persons driving is the proximate cause of the death or the person committed a violation of subsection and was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulted in the death of the person while committing a violation of subsection a cause for motor vehicle accident which resulted in death the legislature didn't choose any of bad language the they prove the violation they still have to prove that that violation links to that and then that doesn't necessarily follow because there's no showing that this had any impact by including a proximate cause requirement and by referring to the violation that encompasses the whole violation not just the driving the state wants your honour's to look at just the driving record saying this is i mean i presented an alternative argument i haven't argued that it's necessarily ambiguous i think the plain language is clear and supports the argument we're making if your honour's find it ambiguous now there certainly we can look to stand straight construction you know and even go beyond that with the requirement that this court interpret the statute in the defendant's favor if it isn't big us in the outside aids don't further lend any support to one interpretation or another but i'd like to maybe take for instance an example on that would illustrate how the scan the state interpretation can only be what the legislature and time to take for instance a situation where an individual is operating a vehicle with some sort of an equipment violation like a tail lights out driving down a dark road  tail lights on the car another a second vehicle you know races up doesn't see the defendant's car the first car slams into it there's an accident death or injury result under the state's interpretation if that tribe or other vehicle with taillights is not otherwise driving and properly is in his own lane driving at the right speed is still at fault and he saw proximate cause of the accident and the injury and or death that would result but again the violation nothing to do with it and that would be the same no matter what the violation would be if the defendant were under a one or even say a to which the state tries to remove from this argument and carve out an exception for you know subsections two through five even if under age he was someone who was under influence of alcohol driving that first vehicle with the defective taillight driving under the influence even if he at that moment is operating his vehicle in his o that is what they're saying with regard to that sort of circumstance but say this is a victim who is in doesn't see the vehicle because the vehicles taillights running in that victim is still within his lane of traffic the defendant is still within his lane of traffic the equipment violation causes the accident the equipment violation is put to good defendant the first driver at fault but his driving didn't do anything in the manner in which he's operating  violation isn't linked to the deaths violation isn't linked to the accident injuries the deaths when you are there but there's no showing that the methamphetamine in this case had anything to prove impairment is as you define it sure i think this take up all sorts of evidence in that regard i mean we're talking we're not talking about the general underlying this to me where there are a whole host of crimes in the legislature can't possibly quest by each one at each level you know how it would affect across a broad spectrum of people but in a particular case the state can put on evidence of here's how much of a drug was found in the system here is what we know this drug expertise of the medical world was such that they could not make that kind of determination it's not that clear it's object i think in talking about just generally the driving offense and the whole variety of substances there may be but now we're talking about a particular and you can sort of be just that the focus would be on for example the amount of the drug in the person system not how it affected the finest right now i think it would be the amount of the drug how it generally is known to affect people i mean i would submit that we know the effects of most drugs on people generally what that defendant was observed to be doing how he seemed after the accident where field sobriety applies across the board and there are all kinds of circumstantial observational evidence that could have been introduced the state didn't go there and in this case the state took the position it didn't have to the state could go there control of every vehicle within this six you're on meth right basically right so how would you describe the violation in this case how would you describe what this violation i mean the violation in afa now says the aggravation says when the violation of subsection a which we just talked about was a proximate cause of the death so my question to you is with your own words of what the violation is here how is the state really into the statute and how are you complying with the statute here if the violation is driving with meth doesn't a plane reading say a violation of driving with meth and that's what we have here if it was a proximate cause of the injury i mean i think the state is reading out of the statute the weeding out there with the math part of the violation it's the whole violation it's not safe variants of this portion of the statute there's there's a strict liability component to this for sure the statute you drive with a trace of meth in your system and under eighty six that's the violation right that's is driving with meth you're it doesn't say in addition you have to prove every element of the violation is the proximate cause of the it doesn't say that it just merely says the violation what else does violation mean i mean if you don't have to prove every element is approximate cause right doesn't it just say driving was the proximate cause it says violation that encompasses the whole violation which is including the presence of math in state itself is taking the position that the meth in the system is that it doesn't matter it's just the driving at this point that's the state's position and now reads out the rest of that violation as the proximate cause and i think merit the fourth district case  when she observed the victim and for the roadway in insult holding the fourth district said the defendant's alcohol consumption impaired driving ability and thus for driving while under the influence was approximate cause of the victim's death if if it didn't matter that you know the violation itself had already been completed by showing that she was driving point away or was driving under the influence the i can sustain the state tries to carve these out these two through five because those require i irment but if it didn't matter whether the impairment affected the end result of impairment influence or impact the outcome here which is the accident that resulted in deaths that would have been necessary to consider that even in m because the underlying violation would have been proven there would have been an accident the court said was the defendant's fault isn't merit i think the plain language should be in this court to conclude that it must be a causal connection between the by a lesion and the death not just the driving in the death if this court concludes that there is some ambiguity that the plain language isn't clear one way or another made an argument that the court should look to outside aides of interpretation including  construction like legislative history in that that supports interpretation too because the legislators were talking about intoxication as a cause and alternatively then if you still find the ambiguity statutory construction principles say interpret the statute with money towards the defendants in favor of the defendant all i would submit all of these ways of interpreting the statute result in the outcome the defendant has put forth here and that is that the violation the driving with math in the system must be linked to the death i want to take a quick minute so many times i'll stop to talk about the second issue and i want to specifically address a couple of the questions us justice freiman there are other things that can produce a positive result from that there was no evidence here to show when the defendant last might have consumed methamphetamine how long methamphetamine generally takes to metabolize through a system how those other drugs that can lead to a positive result f mean how long they take to get through the system states trying to take this expert testimony saying that it was in the urine and that's where we know that that man or any substance last is when it's on its way out of the system i urine and work that back to say well that means that it was from the actual consumption of meant except there's no there was no timeframe evidence there is no evidence about metabolise ation rates we have just little little amount that the defen expert dispute whether should have even been marked as a positive result from math methamphetamine and the state is trying to to somehow show that some prior you said an unknown time cries that positive test thank you but people are not reading anything out of the aggravated dui statute in this case our position has been since trial that the aggravated u i statute requires a proximate cause relationship between a dui violation and the victim's deaths as my opponents conceded the violation of section five zero one eight six the underlying dui violation was complete when he got in his car and drove while there was any amount of methamphetamine in his system in our positions is not read the mean out of the underlying dui violation rather our position is once given the presence of methamphetamine in his urine what would what would have been a lawful act of driving has been transformed into the unlawful act of driving with any amount of methamphetamine in his urine so going to him would you address the example given by mr bryson about the equipment violation the tail lights being in a driver with meth in his system otherwise being a full compliance with the law what's your position as to whether that's an aggravated you in that in that case i don't give in given that the vehicle that the tail lights are broken i don't know that that that isn't that at that that is defendant's fault that that act of driving approximately cause the victim's deaths and to take it to take a perhaps another example if there was some kind of defect in a vehicle that was unknown to the defendant that occurred while while he was driving that that kind of driving would not be a proximate cause either because it's not if i leave it at that and the reason why the general  after the categorical ban on driving of any amount of methamphetamine and in a driver system is that it's too difficult to prove how the different kinds of controlled substances impaired different kinds of drivers so and i think that's clear from the any amount dui in this case and also the point zero eight dui in terms of drunk driving it's possible for some drivers to mask signs of physical impairment so the the any amount  statute in this case and point zero eight the statute provided another way an important way of proving additional instances of drunk driving into or against require evidence of impaired driving for purposes  of enhancing the underlying dui to aggravated dui that really is an absurd result since the the finding that motivated the general assembly to pass the underlined my lation becomes the chief difficulty to to enhancing that violation when it has the most serious consequences which is the deaths of innocent drivers now the defendant relies on people versus merit but that case is easily distinguishable given that the defendant was also charged with violating five zero one  which is the driving under the influence drunk driving statute and that case in that case illustrates the people's approach that that was a bench trial and the trial court had found that the defendant's consumption of alcohol had impaired her ability to drive safely and that her and her impaired driving was a proximate cause of the accident since while sober drivers on the scene were able to take a base of actions the defendant wasn't because she was under the influence of alcohol so anderson's testimony as a whole demonstrates the clear inference is that had defendant taken a substance such as a federal or sudafed pseudoephedrine in a form other than an ingredient of methamphetamine she would have found that substance when she conducted the herbs the third test in her three phase protocol again that was the amphetamine specific test using an instrument that provides what's essentially a fingerprint for drugs in that class and the only drugs she found were methamphetamine amphetamine and and then to turn back to some of the questions there is no record evidence whatsoever that some substance that defendant could have ingested lawfully would would show would metabolize in his system as methamphetamine the the only evidence that defendant relies on is is the wikipedia article that wasn't introduced to trial and which can be considered in any event if there are no further questions at this time we'd ask you to reverse the appellate court's judgment that impaired driving is required for aggravated dui in a firm