West Virginia Supreme Court: DUI Does Not Require Proof Of Driving

[pauldun170]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wes...of-of-driving/

[azoomm]

By citing the fact that Mr. Cain did not testify or present evidence on his behalf, the hearing examiner was not wrongly shifting the burden of proof to the appellee. Instead, the examiner was merely recognizing that the only evidence before him was the testimonial evidence of the arresting officer and the documentary evidence provided through the DUI Information sheet.”

He didn't even testify on his own behalf? So, there's an officer stating they believe blah blah blah. And, you don't even testify that blah blah blah is wrong, what is the court to believe?

[karl_1052]

That is what the law is here.
If you are drunk, and passed out in your back seat, if the keys are anywhere in the car, you can be charged with DUI. Even if you never move the car or even put the key in the ignition.

[sherri_chickie]

My cousin got a DUI in that same situation.. he was asleep in the car and the keys were within his reach ( or something to that effect)..

[Papa_Complex]

Up here you can be convicted under "care and control" if you have the key in your possession, or accessible to you. No key, no conviction.

[Cutty72]

Its called actual physical control in nd. Same charges and penalties, but a bit nicer on your insurance. Been there done that

[Papa_Complex]

No difference here. If you're going to be drunk and sleeping it off in your car, up here, throw your keys away.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by azoomm

He didn't even testify on his own behalf? So, there's an officer stating they believe blah blah blah. And, you don't even testify that blah blah blah is wrong, what is the court to believe?

A lot of defendants don't testify on their own behalf for a few reasons. First a lot of defendants are guilty. While I doubt many of them care about committing perjury their attorneys sure do. If an attorney "knowingly" puts someone on the stand who commits perjury they can get in a buttload of trouble including loosing their license to practice. Another reason is to keep their dipshit client from saying something stupid while being cross examined by the prosecutor. The prosecution cannot call a defendant to the stand as a witness. They only get to question them in court if the defendant decides to take the stand. If they don't testify on their own behalf the prosecution doesn't get the chance to try and get them to say something stupid.

Either way I think the assumption of guilt for some of these DUI cases has gotten out of hand. The prosecution should still have to prove more than the facts that a defendant was drunk and somewhere near a car for which they had the keys.