Opinion ID: 2512385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: NRS 484.3795(1)(b): BAC of 0.08 or more

Text: The district court ruled that the State presented no evidence to establish probable cause that Burcham had a BAC of 0.08 or more while driving, pursuant to NRS 484.3795( l )(b). The State contends that circumstantial evidence, based on simple math, supported a reasonable inference that Burcham's BAC was 0.08 or more at the time of the collision and that expert testimony is not required at a grand jury proceeding. Burcham contends that the State was required to present expert testimony in support of its theory that he was driving with a BAC of 0.08 or more at the time the accident occurred. For the reasons set forth below, we reject Burcham's contention that the State was required to present expert testimony on this issue at the grand jury proceeding. We further conclude that the grand jury could have reasonably inferred that Burcham's BAC was 0.08 or higher when he collided with Whisman's car.