DUI LAWS in Utah Lawyer

Your first DUI is a class B misdemeanor. Your second is also a class B misdemeanor unless certain conditions apply. As always, you need to remember that there are certain steps that need to be taken by the police officers in order to even pull you over on suspicion of a DUI.

Below is some case law interpreting admissibility of evidence in DUI cases. We make sure we are up to date on case law in Utah to ensure that you are getting zealous representation.

CASE LAW:

Trial court's admission of results of defendant's alcohol breath test was not an abuse of discretion, in prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI); although defendant argued that trooper failed to satisfy observation requirement, that officer observe suspect for 15 minutes immediately preceding test, trooper's monitoring of defendant, coupled with defendant's act of alerting trooper to his need to vomit, supported reasonable belief that defendant's mouth was clear for entire observation period, and thus, court could properly conclude that purpose of observation period was satisfied.  State v. Vialpando, 2004, 89 P.3d 209, 496 Utah Adv. Rep. 34, 2004 UT App 95.

Admission of defendant's two prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) for enhancement purposes, in trial for third DUI charge, without first holding an evidentiary hearing on whether he was afforded his constitutional right to counsel in the prior proceedings, was not improper; the State met its initial burden by introducing record evidence of the two prior convictions, which were entitled to a presumption of regularity, and defendant did not present any evidence to rebut the presumption, from which the trial court could presume the regularity of the proceedings.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6;  U.C.A.1953, 41-6-44.  State v. Pooler, 2002, 56 P.3d 979, 456 Utah Adv. Rep. 27, 2002 UT App 299.

Blood sample taken from motorist who was neither under arrest nor incapable of refusing test was taken without consent and inadmissible in subsequent DWI prosecution.  U.C.A.1953, 41-6-44.10, 41-6-44.10(3).  In Interest of R.L.I., 1989, 771 P.2d 1068.

Motorist did not “actually consent” to blood test that was performed prior to his arrest, so that test results would be suppressed in subsequent DWI prosecution based on State's violation of motorist's Fourth Amendment rights, where no one at hospital informed motorist that blood was being taken for purpose of determining blood alcohol content and motorist apparently offered some resistance to taking of blood.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4;  U.C.A.1953, 41-6-44.10(a, b).  In Interest of R.L.I., 1987, 739 P.2d 1123, certiorari granted 765 P.2d 1277, reversed 771 P.2d 1068.

In action by motorist against the estate of deceased for injuries arising out of a collision with deceased's overturned automobile on the highway at night, evidence tending to show that deceased was intoxicated and that deceased had been speeding prior to the accident, and that deceased had lost control of his automobile and went into a borrow pit on side of highway before returning to oiled portion of road where automobile overturned, presented a jury question as to both negligence and proximate cause.  U.C.A.1953, 41-6-44, 78-11-12.  Fretz v. Anderson, 1956, 5 Utah 2d 290, 300 P.2d 642, modified on denial of rehearing 6 Utah 2d 169, 308 P.2d 948.

In prosecution for drunken driving, and upon information supplement which charged prior conviction for similar offense, wherein defendant stipulated that exhibit offered was docket of justice of peace and that entry in question was made in handwriting of such justice of the peace, such entry was prima facie evidence of facts stated and without contrary evidence would be presumed to be correct and sustained court's finding of guilt of prior conviction.  U.C.A.1953, 41-6-44, 78-5-16.  State v. Bailey, 1955, 3 Utah 2d 254, 282 P.2d 339.