What Evidence is Needed for a DUI Conviction in Washington?
In Washington, a defendant can be convicted of DUI crimes based on circumstantial evidence, such as the result of field sobriety testing, or direct evidence, such as a BAC level. Regardless of the character of the evidence presented, the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence that the defendant was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to an extent that rendered them incapable of safe operation. If the prosecution is unable to meet this burden, the defendant should not be convicted. In a recent Washington ruling, the court elaborated on the sufficiency of evidence in a DUI case, ultimately sustaining the defendant’s conviction. If you are charged with a DUI crime, it is smart to talk to a Tacoma DUI defense lawyer about what defenses you may be able to assert.
Law enforcement agents must adhere to constitutional principles when investigating crimes, including DUI offenses. In other words, they must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to stop a motorist for suspected DUI. If they lack suspicion or other grounds for conducting a warrantless investigation, any evidence obtained during the investigation may be deemed inadmissible.
Example 1: Did Anyone See You Driving the Vehicle?
In most instances, the State will possess direct evidence that a person charged with a DUI crime was operating the vehicle while allegedly under the influence. If they do not, however, they may rely on circumstantial evidence, like observations from witnesses, as demonstrated in a recent Washington DUI case. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is sensible to retain a Tacoma DUI crime defense attorney to help you protect your interests.
History of the Case
It is reported that police responded to an incident that occurred late at night when a witness encountered a car off the North Lake Samish exit of Interstate 5 near Bellingham. She observed a person, identified as the defendant, rummaging inside the car and then exiting it. The witness called 911, and an EMT and a police officer arrived at the scene. The EMT and officer both detected the smell of alcohol on the defendant. The defendant made statements to both the EMT and officer indicating she was not driving the vehicle. Despite attempts by the officer to administer a breath test, the defendant refused. The defendant was subsequently charged with felony DUI.
Allegedly, the central issue during the trial was whether the defendant was the driver of a car that had veered off the road. During the trial, the defendant contested the admissibility of her statements under the corpus delicti doctrine, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction, and objected to the admission of evidence related to her refusal to take a breath test. The trial court admitted the defendant’s statements made to the EMT and officer before her arrest but excluded statements made at the jail, except for her refusal to take the breath test. Despite the defendant’s challenges, she was found guilty as charged, after which she appealed.
Evidence in DUI Cases
On appeal, the court first addressed the defendant’s argument regarding the admissibility of her statements under the corpus delicti doctrine. The court explained that corpus delicti requires independent evidence sufficient to support the inference that a crime took place, independent of the defendant’s statements. The court found that the evidence, including observations made by witnesses and the circumstances of the accident, independently corroborated the defendant’s involvement as the driver, satisfying the corpus delicti rule.
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court concluded that the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court then addressed the defendant’s arguments regarding procedural issues during the trial, including the right to counsel and the admission of evidence related to her refusal to take a breath test. However, the court found these arguments either not properly raised or were not of a constitutional dimension, and thus declined to review them.
Finally, regarding the defendant’s sentence, the court determined that the trial court had erred in imposing supervision fees and the VPA. The court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to strike these fees from the defendant’s sentence.
Example 2: Fourth Amendment Concerns Related to the Initial Stop
In a recent case, it was alleged that the defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He was convicted, after which he appealed. He raised several arguments on appeal, all of which the court rejected.
Evidence Sufficient to Establish Guilt in Washington DUI Cases
First, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the third element of his conviction, which required him to be operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe operation. He argued that the arresting officer’s initial decision not to immediately pull him over undermined this element. However, the court disagreed and found that the evidence, when viewed favorably to the verdict, supported his conviction.
Second, the defendant raised Fourth Amendment concerns related to the stop and arrest. While he did not contest the initial stop based on reasonable suspicion, he questioned the subsequent actions of the rangers, including ordering him out of the vehicle at gunpoint. The court determined that these actions did not transform the stop into an arrest and further stated that the rangers had probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence by the time they handcuffed him.
Third, the defendant asserted a due process claim, alleging that he received misinformation from the arresting officer about the consequences of refusing a chemical breath test. However, the court pointed out that the defendant did not refuse a test, was not charged with refusal, and was not challenging a refusal-based charge or sentence. Therefore, his due process argument was dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate how accurate information about refusal consequences would have affected his conviction.
Finally, the defendant contended that testimony about the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety test was improperly admitted. The court acknowledged this claim but found any error to be harmless. It concluded that the strength of the evidence and the magistrate judge’s statements suggested that the admission of this testimony did not affect the verdict.
Example 3: A Case Where the Entire DUI Investigation Got Tossed
In July 2019, a police officer responded to a 911 call from a witness, reporting a man in his mid-thirties staggering through a parking lot. The witness reportedly observed the man, later identified as the defendant, getting into a black pickup truck and moving it within the lot. The police officer, upon arrival, encountered a man pointing to a black truck, claiming the defendant was intoxicated. The officer, unfamiliar with the man, failed to verify his identity and speculated he was the caller. The officer, who found the caller’s tip insufficient to arrest the defendant, then decided to observe the defendant’s driving to corroborate the suspicion of impairment.
Allegedly, the officer then followed the defendant but lost sight of him temporarily due to traffic. She then noted the defendant drifting and suspected speeding. Ultimately, upon noting no definitive infractions, she decided to initiate a traffic stop due to a faulty brake light. The subsequent stop led to the defendant’s DUI arrest and charges. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop. The trial court denied his motion, and he was convicted. He appealed, and the trial court ruling was reversed, finding the tip that led to the investigation tip unreliable and uncorroborated. The city then appealed.
Grounds for Instituting a DUI Investigation
On appeal, the court affirmed the order in favor of the defendant. In doing so, the court disagreed with the city’s assertions that the tip was reliable, emphasizing that the arresting officer lacked familiarity with the witness who provided the tip.
The court explained that warrantless seizures were presumed to be unreasonable, and the burden was on the state to show an exception to the warrant requirement. One such exception was a Terry stop, justified by reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts.
The court then analyzed the reliability of the witness’s tip, focusing on two elements: veracity and basis of knowledge. The city argued that the tip was reliable because the witness called 911, gave his name, and reported contemporaneous eyewitness information. The court noted, however, that even with such factors, the tip might not create a sustainable basis for a Terry stop.
The court highlighted the officer’s lack of familiarity with the witness, stating that an officer’s lack of familiarity with an informant generally undermined reliability. As such, due to the insufficient reliability of the tip, the officer needed to corroborate it to have reasonable suspicion. As the officer’s observations of the defendant did not indicate criminal activity and did not support a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving under the influence, the tip did not provide a sufficient basis for a Terry stop.
Example 4: Challenging the Time Period Between the Stop and the Blood Draw
Reportedly, the defendant was stopped by a police officer after he crossed the center line on a road. The officer observed that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and an odor of alcohol. The defendant admitted to consuming two drinks, after which the officer asked to the defendant to exit the vehicle and undergo field sobriety tests. The defendant agreed and underwent field sobriety tests that he performed poorly. He was subsequently arrested and transported to the sheriff’s office. When he arrived at the sheriff’s office, he refused to submit to a breath test. The officer then obtained a warrant for a blood test.
Allegedly, the defendant was transported to a nearby hospital where his blood was drawn, approximately three hours after his initial stop. The test revealed the defendant’s BAC to be .23. he was charged with felony DUI. A toxicologist testified at trial that typically a person’s BAC would begin to decrease an hour after his or her last drink. The jury found the defendant guilty of DUI and specifically found that he had a BAC of .15 or higher within two hours of driving. The defendant appealed, arguing in part that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sufficient Evidence to Establish Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Under Washington law, evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if it would allow a rational person to find the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Washington criminal defendants have a right to a unanimous jury verdict. This right may also include the right to a unanimous verdict as to the means by which a crime was committed when a defendant is charged with an alternative means crime. An alternative means crime is a single crime for which there is more than one possible method of committing the crime.
Here, the court instructed the jury that to convict the defendant of DUI it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed felony DUI by either driving while under the influence of alcohol, marijuana or any drug, or a combination of alcohol and drugs, or that he had enough alcohol in his system to have a BAC of .08 or higher within two hours of driving. The jury was also instructed that it did not have to unanimously decide which alternative was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as each juror found that one alternative had been proven.
The court stated that where there is sufficient evidence to support each of the charged alternative means, unanimity as to the means of committing the crime is not required. If there is inadequate evidence to support one of the means, however, a unanimous verdict is necessary. The court was not persuaded by the defendant’s argument that his conviction could not stand because there was insufficient evidence that his BAC was .08 or higher within two hours of driving. Specifically, the court found that a blood test within two hours of driving was not necessary to prove that alternative. Thus, the court affirmed the verdict.
Speak to Our Experienced Tacoma Defense Attorneys
Simply because you are charged with a crime does not mean the State has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. If you are a Washington resident charged with a DUI you should consult our experienced Tacoma DUI defense attorneys regarding your charges and what rights you have under the law. The skillful criminal defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Smith & White will aggressively advocate in your favor to help you preserve your liberties. You can contact us at (253) 203-1645 or via our form online to set up a meeting regarding your charges.