Opinion ID: 1810711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cardenas

Text: Cardenas was charged with two counts of boating under the influence (BUI) manslaughter and one count of BUI causing serious bodily injury, among other offenses. On the BUI counts, the State alleged that Cardenas was operating the boat either while he was impaired or while he had a blood- or breath-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher. At trial, the State introduced evidence that Cardenas had been drinking before the fatal collision and had a blood-alcohol level of 0.0999 percent. Cardenas's theory of defense was that another person was operating the boat at the time of the accident. The trial court gave the standard jury instruction that provided two alternative methods in which to prove the crimes charged: that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the fatal accident, Cardenas was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired or had a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. The court instructed the jury that [n]ormal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies, and in general, to normally perform the many mental and physical acts of our daily lives. The court also gave the standard jury instruction on the presumptions of impairment contained in the implied consent law. [3] The jury, utilizing a general verdict form, found Cardenas guilty as charged. [4] On appeal, Cardenas asserted that the trial court committed reversible error under Miles by giving the standard jury instruction on the presumption of impairment after the State failed to comply with the requirements of the implied consent law in obtaining the blood-alcohol evidence relied upon for the presumption. The First District affirmed Cardenas's convictions, concluding that the issue was not preserved for appeal. The court also concluded that the instruction did not constitute fundamental error, but certified the question as having great public importance. See Cardenas, 816 So.2d at 727.