95 results for 'cat:"Evidence" AND cat:"DUI"'.
J. Zahn finds that the district court was within its discretion to exclude evidence that the bicyclist who defendant struck with a vehicle was also under the influence, as that evidence did not constitute an intervening, superseding cause of the collision. The state was only required to show a causal connection between defendant's actions and the bicyclist's injuries to prove aggravated DUI. Also, the admission of defendant's blood alcohol content was supported by expert testimony about testing procedure, despite the lapsed certification of the officer who administered the test. Affirmed.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Zahn, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 50701, Categories: evidence, dui, Experts
J. Kamins finds the trial court erred by declining to suppress evidence used to convict defendant of DUII. “Officer’s request to defendant to perform FSTs constituted interrogation after defendant had invoked her right to an attorney.” Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Powers, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: A177789, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Hess finds defendant's erratic and "moody" behavior during the traffic stop and field sobriety tests conducted by the arresting officer, along with his admissions he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol earlier in the day, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find him guilty of DUI, especially considering he drove across the center line immediately before the stop. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hess, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1642, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Badding finds that defendant was properly convicted of third-offense OWI after crashing through a construction zone because officers observed signs of drug intoxication in defendant after she was detained while fleeing the scene, which justified the warrant for a blood draw. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Badding, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 23-0161, Categories: evidence, dui
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Klappenbach finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for boating while intoxicated. A wildlife officer stopped defendant's boat after he observed his aggressive operation related to cutting off a jet ski. The unsafe speed and closeness of the vessels provided probable cause for the stop. Sobriety tests were administered after the officer smelled alcohol, with defendant failing them all. Sufficient evidence supports the court's ruling. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Klappenbach , Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: CR-23-573, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Joyce finds the trial court erred by admitting arresting officer testimony about field sobriety tests. The “state was required to prove that she had been impaired to a perceptible degree while driving.” Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Joyce, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: A179615, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Greer finds that defendant was properly convicted of OWI, third offense, since the lower court accepted his guilty plea and defendant failed to point to evidence of actual innocence evidence that would have changed the outcome of his trial. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Greer, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 23-0859, Categories: evidence, dui, Plea
J. Brown finds that the trial court properly granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained while an officer was waiting for a backup unit to assist with a stop of defendant's vehicle. Defendant was charged with DUI offenses, reckless driving and driving on the wrong side of the road. The trial court correctly found that defendant's detention by the officer was unreasonably prolonged. The officer failed to immediately perform any field sobriety tests despite being certified to perform them and despite possessing a test in his vehicle which he eventually used on defendant. However, the case is remanded to allow the trial court to analyze whether there was probable cause for defendant's arrest. Affirmed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Brown, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: A24A0328, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Kyzar finds that defendant was properly convicted for DWI, fifth offense. Defendant claims that his counsel failed when they did not seek to suppress and object to the use his medical records as evidence, as those include the results of his blood alcohol tests, but there was no reason why the trial court would allow counsel to suppress or successfully object to the admission of this evidence that the trooper obtained with a warrant.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Kyzar, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: KA-23-742, Categories: evidence, Ineffective Assistance, dui
J. Tookey finds the trial court properly ruled that the state trooper had reasonable suspicion to expand the subject matter of the traffic stop. Defendant got his truck stuck in a ditch while attempting to turn around, and he displayed “shaking, which could be a physical symptom of present intoxication.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Tookey, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: A178918, Categories: evidence, Search, dui
J. Hood finds the district court improperly excluded portions of a video to the jury that shows the defendant refusing to test for suspicion of DUI. This error influences the fairness of the trial, and most likely the jury’s verdict. The defendant has since died, but the portion of the opinion on the administrative definition of “refusal” is remanded for a new trial. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 2024CO20, Categories: evidence, Jury, dui
J. Murray finds that the lower court properly sentenced defendant for driving under the influence and careless driving. The evidence, a police-recorded video of defendant swerving over lines on the road and the fact that his pupils were dilated, sufficed to sentence defendant for a DUI. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Murray, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: J-S37036-23, Categories: evidence, Sentencing, dui
J. Gibbons finds the district court improperly dismissed this DUI-causing-substantial-bodily-harm case. Defendant was witnessed attempting to exit the passenger side of a vehicle that had just run a stop sign and hit another vehicle, injuring the occupants. A blood test showed defendant's alcohol level at twice the legal limit. No other person was found in the car or area, and defendant's blood was found on the driver's side airbag. Though one of the responding officers referred to defendant as a "bitch," without considering the ensuing bad faith allegations as part of the whole investigation, this is insufficient to find bad faith conduct. Reversed.
Court: Nevada Court of Appeals, Judge: Gibbons , Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 86371-COA, Categories: Dna, evidence, dui
J. Gordon McCloud finds that the lower court improperly found that breath alcohol tests performed in Kitsap County and done on Dräger Alcotest 9510 machines violated local state statutes and could not be used for evidence. The lower court is correct that under Washington law, a state toxicologist must approve the methods and math behind test result calculations and the Dräger Alcotest machines do not calculate the math correctly under the statue. However, the machines do not need to do the math alone, as the state is still allowed to do the math according to the law, and there is nothing under the law that states the breath machines have to do that math. As long as the calculations were done correctly by the state, results from the breath tests can still be used as evidence. Reversed.
Court: Washington Supreme Court, Judge: Gordon McCloud , Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 101171-7, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Budd supports the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress analysis of his blood samples. His consent is not needed where he is being charged for operating under the influence resulting in serious bodily injury and death rather than simple operating under the influence. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Budd, Filed On: April 1, 2024, Case #: SJC-13384, Categories: evidence, dui, Vehicle
Per curiam, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reverses the suppression of the defendant’s blood sample analysis. The consent requirement governing blood sample analysis in a charge of simple operating under the influence case does not apply to a charge for operating under the influence in a way which causes serious bodily injury. Reversed.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 1, 2024, Case #: SJC-13458, Categories: evidence, dui, Vehicle
J. Stiglich finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for DUI causing serious bodily harm. Defendant drunkenly lost control of his vehicle and spun into oncoming traffic, striking the victim's vehicle. Defendant fled on foot and the driver and passenger in the other vehicle sustained injuries requiring surgery. Substantial evidence supports the conviction, though the court improperly ordered $10,000 in restitution to a victim's advocacy group without competent evidence. Affirmed in part.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Stiglich , Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 85987, Categories: evidence, Resisting Arrest, dui
J. Reyes affirms the defendant's DWI conviction, finding that the district court did not err by determining that the defendant's statements to paramedics were not protected by physician-patient privilege, nor by refusing to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant for his medical records. Statements to paramedics are not covered by physician-patient privilege, and the presence of the defendant's girlfriend, who was not necessary or customary to his treatment rendered any statements nonprivileged.
Court: Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Judge: Reyes, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: A23-0516, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Powers finds the trial court properly admitted evidence used to convict defendant of DUII. The officer “specifically informed defendant that he was not under arrest prior to administering FSTs and after defendant was given Miranda warnings.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Powers, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: A176268, Categories: evidence, Miranda, dui
J. Olson finds the lower court improperly denied the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s (Commonwealth) petition for a writ of certiorari and affirmed a municipal court’s suppression order. A municipal court granted a driver’s motion to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test, as it determined the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. While the arresting officer found defendant’s behavior and crash site evidence sufficient to make an arrest, the first officer on the scene did not agree. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County affirmed the municipal court’s findings and denied the Commonwealth’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The instant court finds that despite the responding officer's conflicting opinions, given the totality of the evidence presented at the scene, the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest. The matter is remanded for further consideration. Vacated.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Olson, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: J-A28009-23, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Jewell finds that defendant was properly given consecutive 15-year sentences after pleading guilty to two counts of intoxication manslaughter for an incident in which she killed two people in an auto accident after she had consumed alcohol. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting her "post-Miranda statements" to officers that she made while being treated at a hospital because they implied a lack of remorse, but the record does not indicate the disputed evidence likely caused the jury to give her a harsher sentence. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Jewell, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 14-22-00884-CR, Categories: evidence, dui, Manslaughter
J. Badding finds that defendant was properly convicted of OWI, second offense, and child endangerment. Someone in another vehicle reported that defendant had been driving dangerously with a young child in the front seat, and defendant reeked of alcohol and spoke with slurred speak during the traffic stop. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Badding, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: 23-0100, Categories: evidence, dui
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of obstruction of governmental administration and driving while impaired because defense counsel secured acquittal of one count of the indictment, which suggests defendant received meaningful representation. Meanwhile, evidence indicates defendant had refused to exit his vehicle during a traffic stop and that he had seemed confused and glassy-eyed, with slurred speech, when asked about his registration, and that he even dropped his card. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: KA 22-01849, Categories: evidence, Obstruction, dui
J. Hiland finds the court of appeals improperly reversed the trial court's defendant's convictions for DWI and refusal to submit to testing after his arrest for being passed out drunk in his vehicle on the side of the road. The arresting officer testified he had difficulty awakening defendant, who eventually referred to the officer as "mom." The officer smelled alcohol and saw other signs of defendant's intoxication. No abuse of discretion is found in the court's denying a mistrial where defense opened the door to allegedly prejudicial statements about defendant's blood alcohol level or where the possible prejudice could have been cured by an admonition to the jury. Vacated.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Hiland, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: CR-22-452, Categories: evidence, dui, Jury Instructions
J. Hotten finds the lower court improperly found that evidence is insufficient to support suspension of a driver’s license. A state trooper stopped the driver after observing him cross the white line on a roadway. The driver failed several field sobriety tests but passed a breath test, and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, driving while impaired by drugs, negligent driving, reckless driving, and failing to obey properly placed traffic control device instructions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found there was sufficient evidence to support the decision to stop the driver and because the driver refused testing after his arrest, his license was properly suspended. The driver appealed to a circuit court, and despite never viewing the dashcam footage of the incident, found there was not sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s findings. The instant court disagrees with the circuit court’s decision and finds the ALJ made the correct determination.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Hotten, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: 6a23, Categories: evidence, dui
J. Bethel finds that the trial court improperly granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his refusal to submit to a blood test after his DUI arrest. The trial court incorrectly failed to evaluate defendant's evidentiary argument that exclusion of the evidence was warranted under a statute before reaching his constitutional challenge to the admissibility of blood test refusal evidence. Vacated.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Bethel, Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: S23A1118, Categories: evidence, dui