Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer UpdatesProof of DWI charges in North Carolina does not always require an officer to see the vehicle move or the defendant behind the wheel. In State v. Trexler, the North Carolina Supreme Court sets forth what evidence can prove the operation of a vehicle (a prima facie essential element of the offense) when law enforcement arrives after a crash and determines who was driving from statements, including confessions, physical and forensic evidence, witness observations, and the surrounding circumstances.
Trexler matters because of the State’s Burden of Proof. An overturned vehicle, signs of impairment, a breath test result, and a defendant’s statements may be enough in one case, but not so in another. The legal question (and factual inquiry) involves whether the evidence proves more than the defendant’s mere presence near a wrecked car supports a reasonable inference, sometimes predicated on circumstantial evidence, that the person charged actually drove while impaired.
prosecution and defense of DWI cases in North Carolina. The first installment examined the limits of chemical testing. The second article turned to the machines that interpret alcohol breath samples into evidence, using the “breathalyzer.” This post focuses on the field sobriety tests or “SFSTs” that often precede BAC testing.
such as traffic stops, arrests, and DWI charges.
tests, and standardized field sobriety tests.
(SFSTs) to gauge whether enough evidence exists for an arrest or further chemical testing. Roadside dexterity tests—commonly the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg Stand test—remain a subject of debate. Questions arise about whether these tests are truly “standardized,” whether they reliably they measure impairment or are overly subjective, and how courts treat SFSTs as evidence.