Criminal – Woman convicted of driving under the influence of marijuana

Where a woman’s blood analysis indicated a THC concentration significantly above what the Department of Forensics usually sees for marijuana DUI cases, and these results were corroborated by “other competent evidence” relating her marijuana consumption “to the impairment of [her] ability to drive” safely, her conviction was affirmed.

 Background                              

The trial court convicted Sandra D. Summers of driving under the influence of marijuana and sentenced her to 30 days in jail, all suspended. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain her conviction.

Analysis

Summers argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove she was under the influence the extent that it “impaired her ability to drive safely.” She highlights Code § 18.2-266(iii) which forbids driving while intoxicated “to a degree which impairs [one’s] ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle . . . safely.”

She argues that the evidence did not link her marijuana consumption to an inability to drive safely. In support, she emphasizes that she was “stopped for an equipment violation” and that there was “no evidence that she drove in an unsafe manner.” Essentially, Summers argues that Code § 18.2-266(iii) requires proof that the defendant was actually driving in an unsafe manner. This court disagrees.

It is “unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle . . . while such person is under the influence of any . . . drug . . . to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle . . . safely.” Test results concerning the concentration of marijuana in a defendant’s bloodstream while driving “shall be admissible . . . if other competent evidence has been presented to relate the presence of the drug . . . to the impairment of the accused’s ability to drive” safely.

Miller smelled a “strong odor” of marijuana coming from Summers’s car, and Summers admitted to smoking “two blunts” at lunch time and “four blunts” throughout the day. Around 5:30 p.m., when Miller conducted the stop, Summers “flunked” the field sobriety tests. Her blood analysis indicated a THC concentration significantly above what the Department of Forensics usually sees for marijuana DUI cases. Massiello gave uncontroverted expert testimony to the general effects of THC on a person’s cognition and how it impacts the ability to drive safely.

 Summers mischaracterizes Massiello’s testimony as establishing that “the concentration of THC in an individual’s blood has no relationship with the intensity of effect.” Massiello clarified that there is no reliable concentration of THC that can provide a per se limit, like there is for alcohol, because THC dissipates from the bloodstream “very quickly” and deposits into the “fatty tissue of the brain.” In fact, “any amount of THC in the blood can have an impairing effect.”

Thus, in contrast to the statutory limit for alcohol, “there is no safe concentration of THC” that can be indicated by a blood test. Even individuals with low amounts of THC in their bloodstream could be unsafe while driving because THC “doesn’t stay in the blood. It distributes into the brain.”

The results of Summers’s blood analysis were corroborated by “other competent evidence” relating her marijuana consumption “to the impairment of [her] ability to drive” safely. The trial court’s determination was neither unsupported by evidence nor plainly wrong and, thus, will not be disturbed on appeal.

Affirmed.

Summers v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1772-24-1, March 31, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (White). From the Circuit Court of Southhampton County (Tench). (Monica Tuck, Assistant Public Defender; Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant. (Jason S. Miyares,1 Attorney General; Justin B. Hill, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-125. 4 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-125
Virginia Lawyers Weekly