In a January 23, 2026, decision, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed multiple DUI convictions after finding that a trial court improperly admitted a toxicology report that risked confusing and misleading the jury. The court ordered a new trial and provided guidance on how similar evidence issues should be handled going forward.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a December 2021 automobile accident in Cedar Fort, Utah. The defendant rear-ended another vehicle that had slowed to make a left-hand turn. Three occupants of the other vehicle were injured. At the scene, a responding officer observed what he described as agitation, red and bloodshot eyes, and unusual behavior. The officer conducted multiple field sobriety tests and later arrested the driver for driving under the influence.
A blood draw taken at the hospital showed the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine. Based on the accident, the field sobriety tests, and the toxicology results, the State charged the defendant with three counts of DUI and one count of possession or use of a controlled substance.
The Toxicology Report at Trial
At trial, the State introduced a toxicology report that listed the measured drug levels in the defendant’s blood. The report also included additional language stating that stimulant effects had been reported at certain concentration levels and that “toxicity” had been reported above a specific threshold.
Defense counsel objected to the admission of the full report, arguing that while the numerical test results were not disputed, the additional references to stimulant effects, toxicity levels, and impairment were confusing and unfairly prejudicial without proper expert explanation. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the report in its entirety.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor highlighted that the defendant’s methamphetamine level was well above the toxicity number listed in the report.
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The Utah Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the toxicology report without limitation. The appellate court emphasized that, unlike alcohol-related DUI cases, Utah law does not set a specific drug concentration that automatically establishes impairment.
According to the court, the toxicology report’s references to “stimulant effects,” “toxicity,” and impairment thresholds were not directly probative of whether the defendant was incapable of safely operating a vehicle. Without expert testimony explaining how those numbers related to actual driving impairment, the report created a substantial risk that jurors would equate a high drug concentration with legal intoxication.
The court concluded that the danger of confusing or misleading the jury substantially outweighed the probative value of those portions of the report.
Error Was Not Harmless
The State argued that any error was harmless because of other evidence of impairment. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It noted disputes over how the accident occurred, the relatively weak results from standard field sobriety tests, and testimony suggesting the defendant had medical and physical conditions that could affect performance.
Because the prosecutor relied heavily on the toxicology report’s toxicity language during closing argument, the court could not say there was no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the verdict. As a result, all convictions were vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial.
Guidance on Written Statements to Police
Although the toxicology ruling required reversal, the Court of Appeals took the additional step of addressing how Utah Rule of Evidence 804 should be applied to the defendant’s written statement to police. The court did so because the issue was likely to arise again on remand.
Rule 804 governs hearsay exceptions that apply only when the declarant is “unavailable” as a witness. One such exception is for statements against interest under Rule 804(b)(3).
Unavailability Under Rule 804(a)
The court first clarified the unavailability requirement. A declarant is considered unavailable when the court rules that a privilege applies, including the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A criminal defendant may invoke that privilege through counsel.
Here, if the defendant chose not to testify at a new trial and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, he would qualify as unavailable for purposes of Rule 804. The State conceded this point, and the Court of Appeals agreed.
But the court emphasized that unavailability alone does not make a statement admissible.
The Two-Part Test Under Rule 804(b)(3)
- The statement must be genuinely against the declarant’s interest, meaning it had such a strong tendency to expose the declarant to criminal liability that a reasonable person would not have made the statement unless it were true.
- The statement must be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness.
The court stressed that both requirements are meant to guard against fabrication and self-serving hearsay.
Mere Exposure to Liability Is Not Enough
The Court of Appeals rejected the idea that a statement qualifies as “against interest” simply because it could expose the declarant to some criminal liability. Instead, the exposure must be meaningful and substantial.
In this case, the defendant argued that his written statement admitting distraction before the crash exposed him to potential reckless driving charges. The court explained that this was not enough by itself. A statement that minimizes more serious criminal exposure while suggesting a lesser offense may actually be self-serving rather than self-inculpatory.
Courts must therefore look beyond the surface of the statement and examine:
- The circumstances under which the statement was made
- The declarant’s possible motives, including whether the statement attempts to deflect blame or reduce perceived culpability
- Whether a reasonable person might make the statement strategically, even if it were not true
Trial Courts Must Weigh Competing Motives
The opinion makes clear that trial courts are entitled to weigh the tendency of a statement to expose the declarant to liability against other motives the declarant may have had for making it. When a defendant knows he is suspected of DUI, a statement framing the incident as mere distraction rather than impairment may be calculated rather than candid.
For that reason, not every admission qualifies as a statement against interest under Rule 804(b)(3), even if it contains facts unfavorable to the declarant.