Court of Appeals rejects ‘I didn’t know it was illegal’ defense in DUI cases | Arizona Capitol Times

Key Points:

• Two Arizona motorists claim they didn’t know driving the wrong way was illegal

• State Court of Appeals says some offenses are strict liability, knowledge of the law is not required

• Prosecutors must show sufficient signage for conviction in wrong-way DUI cases

Two Arizona motorists argue that they cannot be convicted of driving the wrong way in traffic because no one has proven they knew it was illegal.

But the state Court of Appeals says that claim won’t work.

In a new ruling, the three-judge panel said some offenses are those of strict liability. That includes most civil traffic violations.

So someone trying to fight a ticket for running a red light can’t escape being fined by saying they didn’t know the light was red. The same goes for exceeding the speed limit, failing to use turn signals or driving around a school bus that is loading or unloading children.

Attorneys for the two defendants, however, pointed out they were charged with something that actually is a crime: driving the wrong direction on a highway while under the influence. And that, they argued, is different.

The judges didn’t accept that theory.

But they did agree with the defense lawyers on at least one point: Prosecutors must show that the road signs were in sufficient enough quantity that a reasonable person would know which way traffic has to go to get a conviction.

In the first instance, police stopped Katherine Franz after she was observed driving west in the eastbound lanes of Interstate 10 in Maricopa County. One officer noticed she appeared to be intoxicated.

According to court records, Franz said she had been drinking and did not know how she ended up on State Route 202 — even while she was still on I-10.

A test showed a blood-alcohol reading of 0.134; 0.08 is considered presumptive evidence of being intoxicated.

The other case involves Arthur Schlemmer, who police found driving westbound on Jefferson Street in Phoenix, a one-way eastbound street. He tested at 0.250 blood alcohol content.

Attorneys for both argued that jurors should be told that prosecutors must prove that they knew or should have known they were driving in the wrong direction. The cases wound up at the Court of Appeals after the trial judges denied both requests.

Appellate Judge Paul McMurdie, writing for the court, acknowledged that in criminal cases, the presumption is that the state must “demonstrate some degree of wrongful intent.” That is defined as “mens rea,” a Latin term meaning a “guilty mind.”

By contrast, he said, the strict liability standard applies only where there is “clear legislative intent that the crime does not require any degree of mens rea.”

McMurdie noted that this particular offense has two elements that have to be established: that someone was driving while intoxicated, and that someone was driving the wrong way on a highway.

He pointed out that there is clear case law that there is no mens rea requirement for the first part: Simply being drunk while driving is sufficient to sustain a conviction, regardless of what the motorist knew about being intoxicated.

What that leaves, McMurdie said, is the other half of what’s necessary for conviction: driving the wrong way.

He said that can include driving on the wrong side of a two-way road. But what it also means is that driving the wrong way on a road designated and signed for one-way traffic.

Put simply, McMurdie said, failing to obey those signs, by itself, is sufficient to sustain a conviction — regardless of whether motorists know they are going the wrong way.

But the judge said there is a defense of sorts against such charges.

“The state must move that the highway is appropriately marked or signed,” he wrote. “A defendant may present evidence and argument that, given how he or she entered or drove on the highway, the markings or signage were inadequate.”

McMurdie said, though, that still doesn’t shift the burden to the state to prove that individuals knew they were going the wrong way.

“Such evidence pertains to the legal flow of traffic, not the defendant’s mens rea,” he said. “This is true even if the signage requirement is to give reasonable motorists notice of the legal duties of traffic flow.”

All of this sends both cases back to the trial judges, who are being told they should not be telling jurors the state has to show they knew they were going the wrong way. But they should be instructing those same jurors that it is the state’s burden to prove that, based on the evidence, there was sufficient signage to show the legal flow of traffic.

Attorney Gregory Zamora, who represents Schlemmer, said it makes sense for the state to have to show that the person was driving the wrong way.

“That’s not an intuitive thing,” he said.

“You don’t just know which direction you’re supposed to be traveling on the roads,” Zamora said. “You’re given clear indications from the government.”

And he suggested there is evidence that the signage is not clear “because it keeps happening, at least in downtown Phoenix,” that motorists are stopped for going the wrong way on city streets.