 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Poshka4/1/2005
ry classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.").
Poshka concludes her argument by reviewing other jurisdictions' approaches to similar DUI statutes that, she contends, support her position. See State v. Baker, 720 A.2d 1139 (Del. 1998) (holding similar statute impermissibly shifts burden of proof to defense); Commonwealth v. Barud, 681 A.2d 162, 166 (Pa. 1996) (holding statute similar to former § 28-692(A)(2) unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it "completely fails to require any proof that the accused's blood alcohol level actually exceeded the legal limit at the time of driving") (emphasis in original); Crediford (holding affirmative defense provision of similar statute that shifts burden of proof to defense unconstitutional). That other courts have reached conclusions contrary to Arizona's courts based on interpretations of their different state statutes does not alter our view that the Arizona decisions are correct. And none of the cases Poshka cites supports her contention that the legislature's elimination of the affirmative defense provision in particular renders the Arizona statute unconstitutional.
Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, Poshka's convictions and the imposition of probationary terms are affirmed.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING:
JOHN PELANDER, Chief Judge
M. JAN FLÓREZ, Presiding Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|