INDIANAPOLIS – Rep. Jim Lucas had THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his blood the day he was arrested for hitting a guardrail and driving the wrong way on an interstate entrance ramp, according to a state toxicology report. But the results won’t change the repercussions Lucas faces, according to the prosecutor who handled his case.
Lucas represents parts of Bartholomew, Jackson, Scott, and Washington counties. The Tribune in Seymour first detailed the report’s release.
The Seymour representative is known for his Second Amendment and marijuana support, as well as repeated controversial social media posts.
Lucas failed multiple field sobriety tests early on May 31, when Seymour police found him nearly three miles south of the crash site, according to an Indiana State Police crash report obtained by the Capital Chronicle last month. A portable breathalyzer test revealed his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at .097, higher than the .08 legal limit in Indiana.
Lucas pleaded guilty last month to two charges: leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor, and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor. He was handed a 180-day suspended sentence for leaving the scene and a 60-day suspended sentence on the OWI charge.
Prosecutors brought those charges, and a judge sentenced Lucas, prior to the release of the Indiana State Police toxicology test results.
His blood sample had about 14 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, according to the report, filed on June 27. States with THC limits typically consider 5 nanograms as impaired; Indiana’s statute doesn’t specify a limit because the substance is generally always illegal.
Adding a charge for that would not have changed the results, Jackson County Prosecutor Jeff Chalfant told the Capital Chronicle in an email Friday. The reason is the Indiana statute criminalizing operating a vehicle with certain blood alcohol levels is the same one criminalizing driving with a Schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood. THC is a Schedule I substance.
“I probably would have charged both counts in this instance if I had the results of the blood analysis,” Chalfant wrote. But, he added, “Charging a person both ways does not make any difference in the end, because a person can only be convicted of one of these offenses by law.”
This is commonly called double jeopardy. See the full story here.
