DRIVING CASE: Proving that a Palmer defendant was impaired by Valium is the work of a specialist.
PALMER -- Drunken-driving trials are common at the Palmer courthouse.
Not so common is a trial on a charge of felony driving under the influence of drugs. That is exceedingly rare, according to Palmer police officer Peter Steen. Most defendants accept a plea agreement short of trial, Steen said.
He should know. He's a trained drug-recognition expert since 2004 and an instructor in drug recognition since 2006. Steen said he's been waiting to testify at trial for three years.
This week, he got his chance.
Andrian Marutsheff, 40, of Wasilla was in court this week and last, charged with driving under the influence of a prescription sedative. Thursday morning assistant district attorney Mike Walsh said he expected the trial to wrap up that afternoon.
Steen took the stand Tuesday and testified that he watched the officers run tests on Marutsheff and that their conclusions were consistent with his own: Marutsheff was under the influence of a central nervous system depressant.
Officers can't distinguish between specific drugs within a category of drugs, Steen said. But by narrowing it down to central nervous system depressants, he said, officers are able to rule out other drugs such as stimulants, hallucinogens or alcohol.
Marutsheff's attorney, Gregory Parvin, argued in court that his client was well within the prescribed dosage for Diazepam, a prescription sedative, and that the state couldn't prove the drug left him impaired.
Steen's turn on the stand was the first time a drug recognition expert was certified to testify as an expert witness in Superior Court anywhere in the state, Steen said. In only one other case -- a misdemeanor trial in District Court in Anchorage -- did a certified drug recognition expert testify, Steen said. He hopes his testimony will set a precedent for more such testimony.
"This is case law happening," Steen said.
The problem with trials involving drivers impaired by drugs, Steen said, is that the evidence allowed into court is usually limited to toxicology reports from blood draws and officers' observations of how impaired the driver is.
Without a drug recognition expert it's tough to knit the two pieces together, Steen said. Prosecutors could show the driver was impaired and blood tests might turn up positive for a certain drug.
But without expert testimony it was hard to convince juries the defendant's driving was impaired by the drugs and not by some other factor, Steen said.
Two Wasilla Police officers arrested Marutsheff close to |3 a.m. March 22 in Wasilla. Steen had trained both officers, he said. Neither had yet been certified as a drug recognition expert.
The officers examined Marutsheff's eyes, took blood pressure readings and conducted other tests.
A blood draw eventually showed Marutsheff was on Diazepam, more commonly known as Valium, a central nervous system depressant, Walsh said in court.
Wednesday, Parvin argued that the case should be thrown out.
The state's own witnesses, he said, testified that Marutsheff was "within the therapeutic limits" for Diazepam, Parvin said.
The arresting officers were not certified drug recognition experts, he argued, and therefore the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Diazepam left his client impaired.
"Failing field sobriety tests does not meet the burden of proof," Parvin said.
Walsh argued that Steen was a certified expert and he testified that the officers made the right call. The jury had other evidence to consider, including videos of Marutsheff's driving and taped police interviews, Walsh said.
Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler sided with Walsh. She noted that if the blood test were the only evidence the case wouldn't fly.
But, "the jury really does have a large amount of evidence as to how impaired he was and it's up to them to make the call," Cutler said.
Find reporter Andrew Wellner online at adn.com/contact/awellner or call him at 352-6710.
