This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by a police officer for an unilluminated license plate. The officer observed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. The Defendant failed field sobriety tests and was arrested. A breath test conducted one hour and six minutes after driving showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08. The Defendant admitted to drinking three beers with dinner shortly before driving. At trial, the Defendant presented expert testimony suggesting his BAC at the time of driving was likely lower than the test result due to alcohol absorption processes (paras 5-9).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lincoln County: The Defendant was convicted of driving with a BAC of .08 or more and an open container violation. The court denied the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict, ruling that extrapolation evidence was unnecessary given the timing of the breath test (paras 8-11).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his BAC was .08 or more at the time of driving. He contended that the borderline BAC reading required scientific extrapolation evidence, which the State did not present (paras 8, 10, 12).
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the BAC test result taken within a reasonable time after driving was sufficient to establish the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving. The State argued that no extrapolation evidence was necessary (paras 8, 15).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to prove the Defendant's BAC was .08 or more at the time of driving?
- Is scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence required to establish a nexus between a later BAC test result and the BAC at the time of driving?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction for driving with a BAC of .08 or more due to insufficient evidence (para 31).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Alarid and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant's BAC was .08 or more at the time of driving. The Court emphasized that a BAC test result taken over an hour after driving cannot be rationally related back to the time of driving without scientific evidence addressing alcohol absorption and elimination processes. The jury lacked the necessary tools to make a rational inference about the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving without expert testimony or scientific analysis. The Court rejected the State's argument that a BAC test conducted within a "reasonable time" after driving creates a presumption of intoxication, noting that such a presumption is unsupported by law. The Court also clarified that behavioral evidence, while relevant to impairment charges, is generally insufficient to prove a specific BAC level without scientific support (paras 2-4, 14-30).