Coxe v. State
| Decision Date | 27 August 1971 |
| Citation | 281 A.2d 606 |
| Parties | Charles F. COXE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. Affirmed.
Harold Leshem, of Booker, Leshem, Green, Shaffer, Berl & Wise, Wilmington, for defendant below, appellant.
Peter M. Sieglaff, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff below, appellee.
This appeal of Charles F. Coxe from his conviction in Superior Court of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol challenges the constitutionality of 21 Del.C. § 4176(a), which the appellant alleges provides for a 'conclusive presumption of guilt based upon a chemical reading.'
The statute, 21 Del.C. § 4176(a), as amended June 20, 1970, after setting forth the penalty for a first offense and each subsequent like offense, provides in pertient part:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The statute provides for no presumption of guilt, but instead provides that any person having the specified blood alcohol concentration 'shall be guilty.' To establish guilt, the State must prove only that the defendant was in physical control of the vehicle, and that a proper and timely test showed the required percentage of alcohol concentrated in the defendant's system.
Appellant relies basically on two cases in his appeal. In State v. Childress, 78 Ariz. 1, 274 P.2d 333 (1954), the statute itself states that blood alcohol over a certain weight causes a presumption that the defendant was intoxicated. The defendant objected to this, contending that it was violative of due process in that he was presumed guilty of the crime and the State was relieved of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction by reasoning that the law only presumed that defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, not guilty of driving the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, which still had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In State v. Protokowicz, 55 N.J.Super. 598, 151 A.2d 396 (1959), the statute is similar to the one involved in Childress in that it creates a presumption that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The New Jersey Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the presumption only applied to being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, not the offense of driving while under the influence, and further held that the presumption was not a conclusive presumption, but that evidence could still be presented to establish that the person charged with the offense was not under the influence of alcohol.
21 Del.C. § 4176(a) was preceded by 11 Del.C. § 3507. The pertinent provisions of § 3507 were very much like the Arizona and New Jersey statutes. Under it, proof of alcohol in the blood to the extent of 10/100 of 1% Or more was only Prima facie evidence of being under the influence thereof. The new § 4176 requires, however, and the jury in this case was instructed, that only two elements need be found for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burg v. Municipal Court
...was 0.10 percent or more at the time of the alleged offense]; accord, Greaves v. State (Utah 1974) 528 P.2d 805, 807-808; Coxe v. State (Del.1971) 281 A.2d 606, 607; State v. Gerdes, supra, 252 N.W.2d 335, 336; Van Brunt v. State (Alaska App.1982) 646 P.2d 872, 873; cf. State v. Basinger (1......
-
Landry v. Hoepfner
...to the ability of any individual to drive without impairment while having a blood-alcohol count of .12% or higher."); Coxe v. State, 281 A.2d 606, 607 (Del.1971) (same).Indeed, conventional DWI has been held not to be an offense of moral turpitude. See Compton v. Jay, 389 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.19......
-
People v. Lujan, s. 1064
...N.C.App. 45, 226 S.E.2d 216; State v. Abbott (1973) 15 Or.App. 205, 514 P.2d 355; Greaves v. State (Utah 1974) 528 P.2d 805; Coxe v. State (Del.1971) 281 A.2d 606; Roberts v. State (Fla.1976) 329 So.2d 296; People v. Fox (1976) 87 Misc.2d 210, 382 N.Y.S.2d 921 and cases cited therein.3 See ......
-
Brown v. State, 2273 September Term 2005.
...be understood to "require the jury to convict without considering whether petitioner was intoxicated while driving"); Coxe v. State, 281 A.2d 606 (Del.1971) (upholding per se offense which provided that person whose BAC was .10 or more within two hours of the alleged offense shall be guilty......
-
The offense
...(Del. 1995). The synopsis also states the changes will “return to the DUI laws the interpretations which prevailed” under Coxe v. State , 281 A.2d 606, 607 (Del. 1971), and Slaughter v. State , 322 A.2d 15, 16 (Del. 1974). It appears that the Legislature misinterpreted the court’s previous ......
-
The New Colorado Per Se Dui Law
...1976). 6. People v. Alfaro, Case No. AO 19583, (1st Dist. Ct.App., Cal., filed June _____, 1983). 7. Coxe v. State, _____ Del. _____, 281 A.2d 606 (1971). 8. _____ U.S. _____, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983). 9. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). 10. Florida v. Adamson, Case No. 83-029034-......