Does the Officer Have Proof of Driving While Impaired (DWI & DUI)?

DOES THE OFFICER HAVE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DRIVER IS GUILTY OF DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED (DWI & DUI)?

If the court finds that the officer had Reasonable Suspicion to stop the vehicle and Probable Cause to arrest the defendant, then the remaining issue is: does the admissible evidence prove each element of Driving While Impaired Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The NC standard jury instructions reads as follows: ‚ The State must prove to you (the jury) that the defendant is guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of a defendant's guilt.‚ North Carolina law defines Driving While Impaired as follows: 20-138.1 A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any pubic vehicular area within the State: (1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or (2) After having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. The results of a chemical analysis shall be deemed sufficient evidence to prove a person's alcohol concentration; or (3) With any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance, as listed in G.S. 90-89, or its metabolites in his blood or urine. Each Element of Driving While Impaired (DWI & DUI) 1) DRIVING means as little as a defendant sitting in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle with the key in the ignition and the engine running. Occasionally, sitting in the driver's seat with a warm hood suggesting recent driving may be enough. However, if the officer arrives at the scene of an auto accident after the driver has exited the vehicle, the officer may have trouble proving Beyond a Reasonable Doubt who actually drove the vehicle. 2) ANY VEHICLE means anything with wheels including a car, motorcycle, moped, scooter, bicycle, wheelchair, etc. Riding a horse is specifically excluded from the definition of vehicle. Usually, proving this element Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is either easy or impossible. 3) UPON ANY VEHICULAR AREA means any highway, public street, private street that is not enclosed by a gate, public parking lot, privately owned parking lot available for public use (like at a shopping center), etc. Usually, proving this element Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is either easy or impossible. 4) WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN IMPAIRING SUBSTANCE means is there appreciable (noticeable) impairment of the driver's physical coordination or mental ability to think clearly. An officer will ask a driver to perform certain Field Sobriety Tests in an effort to gather evidence of impairment to present at trial. An experienced defense attorney must attack this issue of alleged impairment vigorously. Poor performance on the Field Sobriety Tests may result from many reasons other than impairment. If the officer failed to provide proper instructions on how to perform the tests, how can the driver be expected to perform the test correctly? Poor testing conditions may keep a driver from performing the tests correctly like completing the tests outside, in the cold, at night, in a poorly lit area, on a sloped or uneven surface, using an imaginary straight line, etc. Physical injury or disability may keep a driver from performing these tests correctly like knee or ankle injuries, balance problems, illness, vision problems, age, obesity, etc. A good defense attorney should make it very difficult for an officer to prove impairment Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The best client is one who refused the officer's request to perform any of these voluntary tests. Also, an officer will ask a driver to provide a breath or blood sample to test for impairing substances. The law requires the person who conducted the test to appear in court and personally testify about the results. Wake County prosecutors try to get around this requirement by providing written notice to every defendant of their intent to present these results without the person who conducted the test. At McCoppin & Associates, we file a written objection to the admission of test results at the beginning of every case. Often, a good defense attorney can push the court to exclude these test results and create a Reasonable Doubt about impairment. The law also requires the chemical analyst to notify a suspect of his right to call a witness to observe the breath or blood test and wait for thirty (30) minutes for the witness to arrive. A good attorney may find a mistake here that requires the court to exclude the test results. In closing arguments, the prosecutor will remind the court that the State does not need to prove guilt beyond all doubt only a reasonable doubt. A good defense attorney will provide the court with a reasonable explanation for the admitted evidence that requires the court to find the defendant not guilty.