posted by Law Help on Aug 13
I have always loved to read. I am fascinated by words. What they mean and how they can affect people. Words have power.
In the world of New York DWI defense words like standardized, validated, reliable, accurate, coherent, calibrated, impaired, intoxicated, reasonable, and fair all have a specific meaning within a specific context. You can never fully understand a word without context. That is why even at spelling bees the participants are given the word within a sentence.
Definitions of terms (words) lead us to judging a set of facts and seeing if they fall within an agreed set of conditions. We all saw this take place when former President Clinton was cross examined as to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Before answering the questions pertaining to the word sex, the President wanted an agreed upon definition for the term. Can you please define “sex”? Can you please define the word “the”?
In the Jones deposition on January 17, 1998, the President denied having had “a sexual affair,” “sexual relations,” or “a sexual relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky.
Then testifying before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, seven months after his Jones deposition, the President acknowledged “inappropriate intimate contact” with Ms. Lewinsky.
As to his denial in the Jones deposition that he and Ms. Lewinsky had had a “sexual relationship,” the President maintained that there can be no sexual relationship without sexual intercourse, regardless of what other sexual activities may transpire. He stated that “most ordinary Americans” would embrace this distinction.
The President acknowledged that [A] person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes — (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . . . “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
According to what the President testified was his understanding, this definition “covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify,” but it does not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed.
In the President’s view(and understanding), “any person, reasonable person” would recognize that oral sex performed on the deponent falls outside the definition because Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on the President, then — under this interpretation — she engaged in sexual relations but he did not.
I wish I could get away with using this logic on my wife. I can see the conversation now, but honey … it’s not sex if only she’s (my new girlfriend) performing and I am not (technically). So what has defining sex (in this way) have to do with defining Intoxication and New York DWIs.
Well first we have all agree upon a NYS legal definition of INTOXICATION. The charge of VTL 1192 (3) is “common law” DWI, and the term intoxication is a specific term of art.
People v. Cruz is the primary New York case to look to when defining the term intoxication.
The NYS legislature has never included a definition of intoxication in the drunk driving statutes but the Cruz case gives us an applicable standard:
“the standard for determining intoxication is constant; that is, whether the individual’s consumption rendered him incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities needed to, for instance, form a specific intent, understand the nature and effect of a contract, or to testify truthfully and accurately”
People v. Cruz, 399 N.E.2d 513 (1979). This was somewhat vague so the Court stated further:
“In sum, intoxication is a … degree of impairment which is rendered when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.”
So there you have it, sometimes sex and intoxication only occur if we can all agree upon their meanings. In a legal setting the lack of objective standards to determine whether a person is intoxicated has led to the “per se” DWI offenses. In future articles, I will discuss VTL 1192 (2), DWI “per se” which means you are DWI when you have a BAC of .08 or higher.
By: DWI Defense Lawyer Larry Newman
About the Author:
In the world of New York DWI defense words like standardized, validated, reliable, accurate, coherent, calibrated, impaired, intoxicated, reasonable, and fair all have a specific meaning within a specific context. You can never fully understand a word without context. That is why even at spelling bees the participants are given the word within a sentence.
Definitions of terms (words) lead us to judging a set of facts and seeing if they fall within an agreed set of conditions. We all saw this take place when former President Clinton was cross examined as to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Before answering the questions pertaining to the word sex, the President wanted an agreed upon definition for the term. Can you please define “sex”? Can you please define the word “the”?
In the Jones deposition on January 17, 1998, the President denied having had “a sexual affair,” “sexual relations,” or “a sexual relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky.
Then testifying before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, seven months after his Jones deposition, the President acknowledged “inappropriate intimate contact” with Ms. Lewinsky.
As to his denial in the Jones deposition that he and Ms. Lewinsky had had a “sexual relationship,” the President maintained that there can be no sexual relationship without sexual intercourse, regardless of what other sexual activities may transpire. He stated that “most ordinary Americans” would embrace this distinction.
The President acknowledged that [A] person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes — (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . . . “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
According to what the President testified was his understanding, this definition “covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify,” but it does not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed.
In the President’s view(and understanding), “any person, reasonable person” would recognize that oral sex performed on the deponent falls outside the definition because Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on the President, then — under this interpretation — she engaged in sexual relations but he did not.
I wish I could get away with using this logic on my wife. I can see the conversation now, but honey … it’s not sex if only she’s (my new girlfriend) performing and I am not (technically). So what has defining sex (in this way) have to do with defining Intoxication and New York DWIs.
Well first we have all agree upon a NYS legal definition of INTOXICATION. The charge of VTL 1192 (3) is “common law” DWI, and the term intoxication is a specific term of art.
People v. Cruz is the primary New York case to look to when defining the term intoxication.
The NYS legislature has never included a definition of intoxication in the drunk driving statutes but the Cruz case gives us an applicable standard:
“the standard for determining intoxication is constant; that is, whether the individual’s consumption rendered him incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities needed to, for instance, form a specific intent, understand the nature and effect of a contract, or to testify truthfully and accurately”
People v. Cruz, 399 N.E.2d 513 (1979). This was somewhat vague so the Court stated further:
“In sum, intoxication is a … degree of impairment which is rendered when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.”
So there you have it, sometimes sex and intoxication only occur if we can all agree upon their meanings. In a legal setting the lack of objective standards to determine whether a person is intoxicated has led to the “per se” DWI offenses. In future articles, I will discuss VTL 1192 (2), DWI “per se” which means you are DWI when you have a BAC of .08 or higher.
By: DWI Defense Lawyer Larry Newman
About the Author:
Originally, born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. My father was a NYS corrections officer and my mother a waitress. I now live in Ithaca, NY with my wife (of 20 years), and four kids. I have a B.S. in Human Biology, Doctorates in Law and Chiropractic, and a Post Graduate in Acupuncture. I practiced as a Chiropractic Physician in Florida from 1986 to 1995. I graduated law school in 1997, and went on to practice trial law in FL, NY, NJ, and PA. I love practicing DWI defense law within the Fingerlakes Region of New York State.
www.ithacadwi.com
607-229-5184