 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mata3/28/1990
->291-4(a)(1).
The court below went far beyond the statute in its instructions.
The trial judge equated the statutory term "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" with the "slightest perceptible, appreciable or noticeable degree" of impairment and instructed that impairment included "any interference with" or "lessening of" "alertness," "any weakening or slowing up of the action of the motor nerves," or "any interference with the coordination of the sensory or motor nerves" which may cause sluggishness.
We note that under the statutory scheme a person tested for blood alcohol content, and found to have .05 or less is entitled to a presumption that he is not under the influence. HRS § 291-5(b)(1). Moreover, it frequently happens, in these cases, that police officers perceive some impairment of the motor nerves, and therefore administer field sobriety tests. Under the instructions given by the court, the test of guilt is reduced to the threshold of reasonable suspicion necessary for the officers to justify administering field sobriety tests. As long as the officer perceives some motor impairment, and thus a cause to administer the field sobriety tests, the case for driving under the influence , under the instructions, has been proved.
We are not unaware of the fact that testimony by experts is sometimes adduced which indicates that any consumption of alcohol causes a diminution of the function of the motor nerves. Yet under the definitions given by the court in its instructions, the slightest perceptible, appreciable or noticeable degree of that diminution is sufficient to convict. The sweeping, repetitive and detailed instructions given here were substantively prejudicial and erroneous.
The convictions are reversed and the cases are remanded for a new trial.
Disposition
The convictions are reversed and the cases are remanded for a new trial.
|