 |
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoople v. State7/16/1999 ue process violation [in defining the offense so as not to require proof of any culpable mental state vis à vis the driver's intoxication]."
Thus, Hoople's underlying crime does not require proof that she acted with a culpable mental state concerning the circumstance that made her driving criminal in the first place (her intoxication or blood-alcohol content) . This being true, it would make little sense to require proof that Hoople acted with a culpable mental state concerning the aggravating factor (her prior convictions) that raised her offense to a felony.
We also note that, although Hoople's argument may be intriguing from a theoretical standpoint, it has little practical effect. Under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, a person can not be validly convicted of a crime unless they are personally present at their trial and sentencing (or unless they knowingly and voluntarily waive their right to be present).
Because of this, if a person has prior convictions for driving while intoxicated or refusing a breath test, it is all but impossible for that person to commit DWI without either recklessly or negligently disregarding those prior convictions. This fact bolsters our Conclusion that Alaska's felony DWI statute passes constitutional muster even though the government need not prove that the intoxicated driver acted with a culpable mental state with regard to their prior convictions.
For these reasons, we hold that Alaska's felony DWI statute, AS 28.35.030(n), does not require proof that the defendant acted with any culpable mental state regarding their prior convictions. We further hold that AS 28.35.030(n) (construed in this fashion) does not violate the due process guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|