 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McBride v. State6/15/2005
time of the blood draw and between .20 and .30 g/dl at the time of the accident. He specifically testified that it was not possible that McBride's BAL was below .20 at the time of the accident.
Based on this evidence and the record as a whole, we conclude that the error in the jury instructions concerning the presumption of impairment was harmless. As noted above, the jury was instructed to find McBride guilty if the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired or that his BAL was in excess of .08 g/dl at the time of the accident. The evidence met this standard, and specifically as to the BAL, the unrefuted expert testimony was that McBride's BAL could not have been below .20 g/dl at the time of the accident. Accordingly, based on the harmless error standard reiterated in Cardenas, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict, or stated differently, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. Because the error was harmless, we affirm McBride's conviction.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
|