Opinion ID: 2330476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Florida DUI Statute Similar

Text: We agree with the rationale in Rogers v. State. Therefore, the Superior Court correctly determined that the holding in Rogers controls the result in this case. Applying the Rogers holding in this case, the Superior Court compared the Delaware statute with the Florida statute and found the statutes to be similar. [9] Under Delaware law at the time of Stewart's arrest, an alcohol concentration of .10 or more presumptively established guilt. [10] In Florida, an alcohol concentration of .08 presumptively established guilt. Thus, Florida required a slightly lower quantum of proof to demonstrate a presumptive violation. The prohibited conduct under both statutes is otherwise identical. Moreover, at the time of Stewart's arrest, Delaware's DUI statute provided that: [e]vidence of an alcohol concentration of more than .05 but less than .10 in a person's blood, breath or urine sample taken within 4 hours of driving . . . shall not give rise to any presumption that the person was or was not under the influence of alcohol, but such fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of alcohol. [11] The Superior Court correctly held that the Florida and Delaware statutes are similar within the meaning of Delaware's DUI statute. Accordingly, Stewart was properly sentenced as a repeat offender.