Guthrie v. Jones
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FIDEL, Judge.
¶ 1 In order to support a charge of “traditional DUI,” the State must prove that a defendant was driving or in physical con trol of a vehicle “[wjhile under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” See A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1) (1998). In contrast, to support a charge of “per se DUI,” the State need not prove that the defendant was under the influence while driving or controlling a vehicle; it suffices to prove that, within two hours of driving or controlling a vehicle, the defendant had an alcohol concentration at or exceeding the statutorily determined rate. See A.R.S. §…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. BransfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- State Ex Rel. Dean v. City CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. HanksSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
- Holt v. HothamCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
3Cited by20 opinions
- People v. McNealCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. ArellanoArizona Supreme Court · 2006
- Prosise v. Hon kottke/stateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
- State v. SlaytonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph CoopermanArizona Supreme Court · 2013
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.