State v. Grimes, 2
| Decision Date | 17 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 773 P.2d 227,160 Ariz. 329 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles Lee GRIMES, Appellant. 88-0340. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of one count each of 1) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, 2) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor while his license was suspended, and 3) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor while never having reapplied for or obtained a license after suspension. Appellant admitted a prior DUI conviction. He was placed on probation for three years, subject to the condition that he be incarcerated for six months, and ordered to pay a fine of $274, a surcharge of $70 and $100 to the Victim Compensation Fund.
On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing the following instruction:
You are instructed that if you find the defendant's control of his vehicle was affected to a degree that rendered him incapable of safely driving his vehicle due to the alcohol he consumed, then the defendant is guilty of driving while under the influence.
Instead, the trial court instructed the jury:
[I]f you find that the defendant's control of his automobile (or other vehicle) was affected to the slightest degree by intoxicating liquor, the defendant is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors.
Appellant acknowledges that the "slightest degree" instruction has been approved by the Arizona courts, see Noland v. Wootan, 102 Ariz. 192, 427 P.2d 143 (1967); State v. Askren, 147 Ariz. 436, 710 P.2d 1091 (App.1985), but argues that we should follow the lead of the Montana Supreme Court in mandating an instruction which requires the jury to find that a defendant's driving ability has been impaired to the point that he is incapable of driving safely. City of Helena v. Davis, 723 P.2d 224 (Mont.1986). Appellant further argues that the adoption of the statutory presumptions set forth in A.R.S. § 28-692(E), together with the legislature's treatment of driving under the influence of drugs, warrants the inference that the legislature intended a higher standard of proof to apply to DUI cases. We disagree.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
POULNOT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 91-CT-477
...if driver's ability to operate car is affected to the "slightest extent" by consumption of alcohol); State v. Grimes, 160 Ariz. 329, 330, 773 P.2d 227, 228 (Ariz. App. 1989) (same); State v. Rodgers, 91 N.J.L. 212, 215, 102 A. 433, 435 (1917) ("any abnormal mental or physical condition whic......
-
West v. Sundance Development Co.
...III. Sundance asked the trial court to give the following instruction on intoxication that we previously approved in State v. Grimes, 160 Ariz. 329, 773 P.2d 227 (App.1989): If you find that the plaintiff's control of her automobile was affected to the slightest degree by intoxicating liquo......