Supreme Court of California

Court of Appeals judgment is affirmed where evidence about partition ratio variability is relevant in generic DUI cases to rebut the presumption of intoxication in Vehicle Code sec. 23610 and support an inference that the defendant was not under the influence, but may not be used to negate the basic fact triggering the Vehicle Code sec. 23610 presumption and thereby defeat operation of the presumption itself. Conviction for driving under the influence is affirmed where: 1) although defendant was prevented from introducing evidence about partition ratio variability, the error was harmless, as there was significant evidence of his intoxication; and 2) the jury's verdict indicated that the admission of partition ratio evidence was not reasonably likely to have produced a more favorable result.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/09/2009
• Published 07/09/2009

Judges

• CORRIGAN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Jamie L. Popper, San Diego, and Linn Davis, Norco, for Defendant and Appellant., Darryl W. Genis, Santa Barbara, for California DUI Lawyers Association, David Stanford, Marta Gajewski, Lyle Clayton Turner and Ronald Audia as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, Mark A. Vos, Lead Deputy District Attorney, and Astrid G. Alfonso, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent., Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney (San Diego);  Albert C. Locher, Assistant District Attorney (Sacramento);  Margaret O'Malley, Deputy District Attorney (Santa Barbara);  and W. Scott Thorpe, Sacramento, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.