One commonly overlooked element of the crime of D.U.I./D.W.I. is the state’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in the case was actually the driver of the vehicle in question. Isn’t that relatively easy to show though? In certain cases, it can be much more difficult for the state to prove then you might think.
For example, suppose an individual has been drinking and is involved in a single car accident. After the police arrive at the scene, the motorist is placed under arrest for D.U.I. but refuses to answer any questions or submit to field sobriety tests. At trial can the district attorney actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in question had been driving the vehicle? Isn’t there at least a possibility that he was a passenger in the vehicle, rather then the driver? Keep in mind that the defendant cannot be called to testify against himself, unless he or she so desires. So, who can testify that the defendant was actually driving the vehicle – no one.
This defense strategy is certainly not without its potential weaknesses, however. Indeed, circumstantial evidence may very well be used to place a defendant behind the wheel of the car. If he wasn’t driving who was? If there was an accident, did the defendant have injuries or scars likely inflicted at impact? Did anyone else actually witness the defendant driving the car?
