The Washington State Supreme Court issued an en banc ruling Wednesday in *State of Washington v. Ahmed Mohamud Wasuge*, clarifying the legal standard for proving 'affected by' intoxication in driving under the influence cases. The decision addresses how prosecutors can establish impairment under Washington's DUI statutes when defendants are charged with being 'affected by' intoxicating liquor rather than under other prongs of the law.
The case involves both felony DUI and physical control charges against Ahmed Mohamud Wasuge under the 'affected by' provisions of Washington state law. Under RCW 46.61.502(1)(c), a person can be found guilty of driving under the influence if they drive while 'affected by' intoxicating liquor. Similarly, RCW 46.61.504(1)(c) makes it a crime to have actual physical control of a motor vehicle while 'affected by' intoxicating liquor.
The case centers on the interpretation of what constitutes being 'affected by' alcohol for purposes of DUI prosecution. This legal standard is distinct from other ways prosecutors can prove impairment, such as blood alcohol concentration levels or being 'under the influence.' The 'affected by' standard requires showing that a person's ability to drive was lessened in any appreciable degree due to alcohol consumption.
At trial, the jury faced the task of determining whether Wasuge was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, and whether he was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor such that his driving ability was diminished. The jury instruction specifically referenced the requirement that alcohol must have lessened his ability to drive a motor vehicle 'in any appreciable degree.'
The trial proceedings revealed the complexities inherent in 'affected by' cases. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the felony driving under the influence charge based on the 'affected by' standard. However, they did convict Wasuge of the lesser included offense of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case en banc signals the significance of the legal questions presented. En banc review, where all justices participate rather than a smaller panel, is typically reserved for cases involving important legal principles or when clarification of state law is needed. This suggests the court recognized the need for statewide guidance on how the 'affected by' standard should be applied in DUI prosecutions.
The 'affected by' prong of Washington's DUI statutes has been a source of confusion for courts and practitioners. Unlike blood alcohol concentration thresholds, which provide objective measurements, the 'affected by' standard requires subjective assessments of impairment. Prosecutors must prove that alcohol consumption diminished a defendant's driving ability to some measurable extent, even if that impairment falls short of the traditional 'under the influence' standard.
This distinction matters significantly in DUI prosecutions because it affects what evidence prosecutors must present and how juries evaluate that evidence. The 'affected by' standard may apply in cases where defendants have lower blood alcohol levels or where other evidence of impairment is present but may not rise to the level of being 'under the influence.'
The case also highlights the relationship between different DUI charges. Physical control charges apply when a person has actual control of a vehicle while impaired, even if they are not actively driving. This charge often applies in situations where police find someone in a parked car with the keys accessible, even if the engine is not running.
Washington's DUI laws provide prosecutors with multiple theories for charging impaired driving cases. They can proceed under provisions requiring proof of specific blood alcohol levels, being 'under the influence,' or being 'affected by' alcohol. Each standard has different evidentiary requirements and proof burdens.
The Supreme Court's ruling in *Wasuge* will provide crucial guidance for trial courts handling similar cases across Washington. The decision will clarify how judges should instruct juries on the 'affected by' standard and what evidence prosecutors must present to meet their burden of proof under this provision.
Legal practitioners expect the ruling will also affect plea negotiations in DUI cases. Defense attorneys and prosecutors will need to consider how the clarified standard impacts case evaluation and charging decisions. The decision may influence whether prosecutors choose to charge under the 'affected by' provision or pursue other theories of impairment.
The timing of this decision is particularly relevant as Washington continues to address impaired driving enforcement. The clarification of the 'affected by' standard will help ensure consistent application of DUI laws across the state's various judicial districts.
The full text of the Supreme Court's opinion in *State v. Wasuge* will provide detailed guidance on how courts should handle 'affected by' DUI cases going forward. The decision represents an important development in Washington DUI law that will influence prosecutions and defense strategies throughout the state.