Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a witness may not testify as to whether a defendant is innocent or guilty
• holding that a witness may not testify as to whether a defendant is innocent or guilty
• finding that “[p]ragmatically, there may be no way for a particular drinker to know the precise moment he reaches the physiologic point at which driving or controlling a vehicle will violate the law.”
• vacating DUI conviction due to court’s error in admitting intoxilyzer test results when state had not established the foundational requirements for the test’s admission
• stringent DUI laws further state’s compelling interest in removing impaired drivers from the road
• in DWI case, police officer may testify about symptoms exhibited by defendant that indicate intoxication, but may not opine that defendant was intoxicated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).