CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

ORANGE COUNTY'S "BEST" DUI DEFENSE LAWYERS RATED BY SUPER LAWYERS, ORANGE COUNTY'S "TOP-RATED" DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PART I

DUI IS A CRIME BASED ALMOST ENTIRELY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The crime of driving under the influence, or DUI, is a crime centered almost entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is a crime that requires a jury to consider not what a defendant's ultimate blood alcohol concentration was at the time of the chemical test; but rather, whether that person was at or above a blood/breath alcohol level of 0.08% or more at the time of driving. It also requires a jury to consider whether the person was actually impaired at the time of driving and not after the time of driving, which the person may have become during the investigation period.

It is because of this that the "Circumstantial Evidence" jury instruction becomes so significant. We do not yet possess an ability to test a persons blood/breath alcohol level while they are driving - an investigation first has to be conducted and this takes some time. During this time, this person's blood/breath alcohol level could be "rising", and thus, he/she could have been below 0.08% at the critical time: the time of driving - and it could also mean that the person was not impaired at the time of driving either. If either one or both of these is true, the person may not be guilty of the crime of driving under the influence, or DUI.

Now some may argue that because an officer observed the defendant driving would seemingly prove that the person was driving under the influence; but the manner in which a person drove cannot, in and of itself, establish impairment or that the person was driving with a blood/breath alcohol level of 0.08% or greater.

 

 

Orange County DUI Discovery

What this basically boils down to is this: circumstantial evidence can be powerful; but it is insufficient to convict if the evidence is such that the jury was led to the wrong conclusions. As this passage demonstrates, there are "dangers" that lie in circumstantial evidence as even an honest man or woman sitting as a jury may, in times of emotional stress, draw false conclusions from startling circumstances and this human weakness has resulted in convicting those who were in fact innocent of the crime or crimes for which they were charged.

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION

Section 224 of the Jury Instructions, entitled: “Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence”, reads as follows:

Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND DIRECT EVIDENCE

Before tackling the Circumstantial Evidence instruction, let’s first examine what exactly this type of evidence is, as defined by Section 222 – Direct and Indirect Evidence:

Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what someone saw or heard or smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone’s opinion.

Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies she saw a jet plane flying across the sky, that testimony is direct evidence that a plane flew across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly. For example, a witness testifies that he saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as “circumstantial evidence.” In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.

As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. You may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether it is direct or indirect, you should give every piece of evidence whatever weight you think it deserves.

So the evidence can be either direct, meaning that it was directly witnessed; or it can be indirect evidence, which essentially means that it can be concluded from the facts. But, “before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty.”

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE

Now this is something to think about – you must be certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that guilt is the only reasonableconclusion. Now here’s where it gets even more interesting when you take all of this together as it was intended:

If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.

So in furthering the significance of the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts the jury instruction goes on to state that “if you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.” Let me say that again, you must accept the one that points to innocence, and thus reject the one or ones that point toward guilt.

This is quite significant. What this means is that if you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, then you must you must accept the one that points to innocence and reject the ones that point to guilt – this is a significant protection afforded to all criminal defendants and the reason I commonly refer to this instruction as the “Reasonable Doubt” instruction.

So, and as stated by precedent, circumstantial Evidence must therefore be entirely consistent with a theory of guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion in order to warrant a guilty conviction. See: People v. Bender (1945) 27 Cal.2d 164, 175 [163 P.2d 8] [sua sponte duty to instruct]; People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49 [286 P.2d 1] [sua sponte duty to instruct].

Click To Call
Set Appointment