AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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, Eric Reger, was involved in a two-vehicle accident and was found by a State Police Officer at the scene with a partially consumed bottle of vodka. The Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol before, during, and after driving. Approximately ten hours after the incident, a breath test administered to the Defendant showed a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08. The State did not provide scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence to establish the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving or within three hours thereof (paras 9-10).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his conviction for per se DWI, specifically lacking scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence to establish his BAC was .08 or greater at the time of driving or within three hours thereof (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Countered that under State v. Day, the State was not required to provide scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence because the Defendant's BAC was at .08, arguing that the district court could infer the Defendant's BAC at the time of the accident without such evidence (paras 11, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in convicting the Defendant of per se DWI without scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence to establish the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving or within three hours thereof (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI due to insufficient evidence to establish the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving or within three hours thereof (para 30).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Gerald E. Baca, J. Miles Hanisee, and Kristina Bogardus concurring, found that the State failed to meet its burden of proof for a per se DWI conviction under Section 66-8-102(C)(1). The court highlighted the necessity of scientific retrograde extrapolation evidence to establish a nexus between the Defendant's BAC at the time of the test and the time of driving, especially given the test was conducted ten hours after the incident. The court determined that without such evidence, it was not possible to reasonably infer the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving, leading to the reversal of the conviction (paras 4-29).