Expert testifies that accused was well over legal alcohol limit before head-on TCH crash

By Peggy Revell on January 26, 2018.

The accused in a 2015 collision that severely injured multiple people was well over the legal blood alcohol limit, according to testimony given Thursday by an expert witness for the Crown.

Wrapping up its case against 57-year-old Curtis Beisel of Cypress County, the Crown’s final witness was Tanya Ames, an expert in forensic toxicology and analysing blood alcohol levels, who works at the RCMP’s forensic laboratory.

Ames was the one who tested the blood samples taken from the accused following the December 2015 incident where he’s alleged to have driven the wrong way down the Trans-Canada Highway near Dunmore, and an ensuing collision sent multiple people to hospital, including a newborn.

According to Ames, her tests of the blood sample taken by hospital staff at 8:20 p.m. on the night of the collision showed a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 173 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

A second report authored by Ames calculated that the BAC around 7 p.m. when the collision occurred would have been in the range of 186 to 200 mg/100ml.

Under the law, licence suspension and vehicle seizures can occur if someone is caught driving with a BAC over 0.05, or 50mg/100ml, while criminal charges can be laid for a BAC over 0.08, or 80 mg/100ml.

“It is my experience that the majority of people show signs of impairment at 50 mg,” said Ames, adding that at 100 mg or higher, it’s not possible to operate a vehicle safely. While it depends on an individual’s tolerance for alcohol, a BAC over 100 would generally include impaired vision, judgment, information processing and reaction time.

Above 150, it’s expected the person would display outward signs of intoxication, she testified, while above 250 would be considered severely intoxicated.

Cross-examination by defence counsel Lyndon Heidinger included a number of questions surrounding the chain of command for how blood samples were stored, the sort of containers used, quality control standards, equipment calibration, and if “micro-clotting” — where blood may have clotted, but is not visible except by microscope, had been considered while testing.

Heidinger also questioned how the retroactive BAC calculation was made, including around the rate which alcohol is metabolized, and how the calculation made assumptions on the type of drinking that occurred, such as social drinking as opposed to “hard drinking” or “bolus drinking,” where large quantities of alcohol are consumed in a short amount of time.

With the Crown’s case wrapped up, the trial is now set to resume Feb. 2, with defence expected to call one or two witnesses.

Share this story: