Legal Opinion

Guthrie v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 4, 2002No. 1 CA-SA 01-0312PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. People v. BransfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State Ex Rel. Dean v. City CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. HanksSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  4. Holt v. HothamCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. People v. McNealCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. ArellanoArizona Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Prosise v. Hon kottke/stateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
  4. State v. SlaytonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. Cv-12-0319-Pr State of Arizona v. Joseph CoopermanArizona Supreme Court · 2013

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API