Charles Barkley recently pleaded guilty to two counts of DUI and spent a week in jail. I realized that I hear this a lot when talking about DUI charges. Why two counts for one offense? What are they being charged with?
No clue about his case, but perhaps “driving while impaired” is a separate offense from “driving with a BAC of .08 or higher”
Yes. In Arizona you’re charged with 2 crimes.
- DUI.
- Driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration.
Too late to edit. But you can look up his case here
AZ courts.
Looks like they’ve edited some of the information because he’s a celebrity.
Maybe he popped open another can on the way to the police station 
I sat on a jury for a DUI trial last year, and while this was in California, I’m sure the laws in Arizona are pretty much the same.
On my trial, as was the case with Mr. Barkley, there were two counts: Driving Under The Influence and Driving With BAC Above 0.08.
The first officer on the scene did not perform a breath test on-scene, and the defendant was not breath tested until taken to the station close to an hour later. He blew a 0.14 then, his lawyer (clumsily, but successfully) argued that his BAC was on the way up between the arrest and the testing, and in deliberation we decided that the possibility that he had just drunk his alcohol right before driving was enough of a reasonable doubt not to convict on Driving With BAC Above 0.08.
However, we were quite convinced that he was impaired, and convicted on DUI, which only requires impairment and not having a particular BAC at any given time. It wouldn’t surprise me if his punishment would have been the same if convicted of either or both counts.
D
Ah, the old, “Maybe I was driving drunk - but not nearly as drunk as I planned to be in another 20 minutes” defense.
Sheesh.
what exactly is sheesh-worthy of that?
What is the definition of driving under the influence?
28-1381. Driving or actual physical control while under the influence; trial by jury; presumptions; admissible evidence; sentencing; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:
-
While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.
-
If the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle.
-
While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person’s body.
Basically, you aint right. Or someone thinks you arent.
We know someone who was taking prescription pain meds, got pulled over, failed the “test”, and lost their state job because of being “under the influence”, with no booze involved.
I struggle with the idea that you have jury trials for DUI offences. It must choke the system. Here in OZ and elsewhere, these matters are summary charges, not indictable ones. It’s treated seriously, but the process is much less operatic than a full jury trial. And there are statutory provisions that rule out defences based on claims that you drank just before getting behind the wheel, etc.
If you drive will hammered and kill or injure someone, that’s another matter. You’re off to a jury trial for that. And serious gaol time.
But vanilla DUI offences? There must be squillions!
Yeah, it’s great that the state can penalize you (for something that is treated seriously) without a full and fair judicial process. just great.
That it is almost always a lie.
So, it’s 8:00. I haven’t imbibed anything all day. I drink 2 beers. It’s now 8:30. I pound 2 shots of vodka. I get in a car, and drive. I weave a bit (because of the beer) I am stopped by the cops at 8:35. I were to breathe into a breathalyzer right now, I would blow, say a .025 (I’m sure the BAC math is off, but no matter, the point is that I don’t blow anything close to a .08 as the vodka hasn’t started to metabolize yet). I refuse the breathalyzer (as they are kind of imprecise). I am arrested and hauled off to jail for impaired driving. It takes me 45 minutes to get to the station and get processed. At the station, I consent to a blood screening. Blood is taken. Results indicate a .09 BAC.
On what planet am I guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of .08 or higher?
(edit: yes I realize it is in the statute i listed above, but
G. In a trial, action or proceeding for a violation of this section or section 28-1383 other than a trial, action or proceeding involving driving or being in actual physical control of a commercial vehicle, the defendant’s alcohol concentration within two hours of the time of driving or being in actual physical control as shown by analysis of the defendant’s blood, breath or other bodily substance gives rise to the following presumptions:
-
If there was at that time 0.05 or less alcohol concentration in the defendant’s blood, breath or other bodily substance, it may be presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
-
If there was at that time in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.08 alcohol concentration in the defendant’s blood, breath or other bodily substance, that fact shall not give rise to a presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but that fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
-
If there was at that time 0.08 or more alcohol concentration in the defendant’s blood, breath or other bodily substance, it may be presumed that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
)
You’re serious? To have a defense based on, “I just drank a ton of alcohol, but it hadn’t hit me to the full extent yet, maybe I’ll drive because my BAC hasn’t reached the limit yet”.
To have a defense based on your BAC going up?
Yeah, that’s sheesh-worthy. :rolleyes:
IIRC, in some states all that matters is what you test at. Not what your actual BAC WAS at the time of being pulled over.
So, if your timing is such that it peaks LATER, thats just your tough luck. And seeing how the I wasnt drunk at the time defense could be abused, it makes some sense.
Yes, DUI defense is not my forte, clearly 
My initial thought is this is exactly why you get charged with 2 offenses.
(edit: what i mean by that is I blatantly contradicted myself in my analysis and my posting of the AZ statute. my bad)
You clearly have no idea how the British style justice system works.
You recieve a summons to appear before a magistrate (county judge basically). This apperance is essentially an indictment hearing. After hearing evidence, if the magistrate decides you have a case to answer you then have two options. You can elect to plead guitly and have the matter dealt with by the magsitrate provided the prosecutor also agrees, or you can elect to proceed to a full jury trial. Note that in theory either prosecutor or accused can elect to proceed to full jury trial. In practice I have never heard of the DPP refusing to allow a DUI matter to be dealt with by the magistrate.
How is this in any way lacking in full and fair judicial process? It is, in practical terms, no different to the US system of plea bargaining, which also allows the state to penalize you (for something that is treated seriously) without a full and fair judicial process, provided that both agree to it.
The only diference is that you get to avoid the expense of a jury trial if you want it. Not just when the state wants it. You still have the right to that trial, you just get to waive it even when you have nothing to bargain with. That prevents the state from using the cost of a jury trail as a threat/punishment in its own right.
Oh, and of course taxpayers get to avoid having to pay tens of thosuands of dollars to issue a $500 fine and suspend someone’s licence for 12 months.
If you can point out any practical way in which the US system is superior then by all mean enlighten us. But to suggest their is any less full and fair judicial process under this system displays gross ignorance.
+1 for New Zealand - you blow in the bag and are over the limit it’s automatic disqualification - there is no defence. The only area for argument is if you wanna try something procedural or plead for leniency in the sentencing, but you need to be on REALLy solid ground because generally you are on a hiding to nothing.