Newsletters

Victim Impact Statements in DUI/DWI Cases

Victim impact statements are typically addressed in cases involving drunk driving accidents resulting in serious injury or death. Such offenses are charged as felonies, punishable by incarceration of up to five to seven years in the case of injury and up to 30 years in the case of death.

"Wet Reckless" Convictions in DUI/DWI Cases

In some states, motorists who have been charged with driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) may be able to plea bargain the charge down to a wet reckless charge. A wet reckless charge is considered a lesser charge than a DUI or DWI. In addition, a wet reckless charge usually carries a sentence of probation rather than jail time, and the fines involved are usually lower. Although the name of the offense is "wet reckless," there is no requirement that there is any reckless driving.

"Involuntary Intoxication" Defense to a DUI Charge

Because driving while intoxicated is a strict liability offense, meaning that it does not require specific intent, the defense of "involuntary intoxication" is often difficult to assert. Involuntary intoxication is a defense to criminal culpability when it is shown that: (1) the accused has exercised no independent judgment or volition in taking the intoxicant; and (2) as a result of his intoxication, the accused did not know that his conduct was wrong or was incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirement of the law he allegedly violated.

Defendant's Right to Counsel Before Consenting to Chemical Test in Drunk Driving Case

Most people are aware that Miranda warnings must be given an accused before he or she is subjected to custodial interrogation. The warnings are intended to protect the privilege against self-incrimination, and the Fifth Amendment right to counsel was created to protect that privilege. However, if the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated, the warnings are not required, and there is no right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court has held that "physical" evidence may be obtained from an accused without running afoul of the privilege. Therefore, the right to counsel privilege has been held inapplicable to physical or performance tests and chemical tests of bodily substances.

Consequences for Refusing to Submit to Blood Alcohol or Field Sobriety Tests

As chemical testing has evolved into a much relied on prosecution tool, ''implied consent'' laws have evolved to defeat the drunk driver's inclination to refuse to consent to such testing. An implied consent statute does not command that a person suspected of driving while intoxicated be forced to submit to a chemical test; rather, the person may refuse to take a chemical test of his or her blood, breath or urine, but if certain statutorily prescribed procedures are complied with, such a refusal does not go unpunished.