Superior Court Of California, County of Sutter

If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs in the state of California, it is important to know the location of the courthouse where your arraignment will be held. If there are multiple courthouses in the county, please contact a skilled California DUI / DWI defense attorney for more information.

Sutter County Superior Court
446 2nd Street, Yuba City, CA 95991-5525

» Sutter County Superior Court of California website.

Getting arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI can be a frightening experience. Suspected drunk drivers face a legal labyrinth that can seem daunting. A drunk driving case generates two separate cases – in criminal court, and at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A California attorney with experience defending drinking and driving cases can help drivers navigate through both the DMV hearing and the court case.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

Jury Instructions

In California drunk driving trials and all other criminal cases, jurors take an oath to follow the law. The law in each particular criminal case is given to jurors in the form of jury instructions. The judge usually reads the instructions aloud and also gives the jurors a copy. Whether the instructions are issued before attorneys’ closing arguments or just before the jury retires to deliberate depends on the preference of the judge.

In California, the instructions issued in criminal trials are from CALJIC, or California Jury Instructions, Criminal. In addition to the CALJIC instructions, the attorneys for both sides can submit their own proposed jury instructions tailored to the specific facts of their cases. A skilled California DUI / DWI lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm will submit instructions designed to advance the client’s case.

The judge and attorneys will discuss the proposed instructions outside the presence of the jury. The prosecutor typically seeks instructions that are objectionable to the defense, and vice-versa. Each side presents arguments in regard to the instructions, and the judge rules on the final version.

One very important jury instruction that skilled California DUI / DWI defense lawyers rely upon is CALJIC No. 224 on circumstantial evidence. It reads as follows:

Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence
Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.

This instruction states that in cases supported by circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has the burden of proving each element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the circumstantial evidence points to more than one conclusion, the jury must accept the one that points to the defendant’s innocence.

This particular part of the jury instructions can be employed to cast doubt on every single item of circumstantial evidence in the prosecutor’s case. A knowledgeable California DUI / DWI defense lawyer will submit jury instructions designed to help the accused drunk driver advance his or her case and point jurors toward a verdict of not guilty.

Chemical testing is a key issue in every California DUI case. Accused drunk drivers often fear that if the machine says someone is above the legal limit, they are guilty, period. However, there are many challenges to the validity of blood, breath and urine tests in driving under the influence cases. An experienced DUI defense attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm has an arsenal of proven strategies available to attack the results of chemical tests in driving while intoxicated cases.

Most California DUI arrests result in two separate charges – violation of the “common law” drinking and driving laws, and violation of the “per se” laws. Common law drunk driving charges hinge on whether the motorist was impaired by alcohol and/or drugs, and was unable to operate a vehicle with the same caution as a sober person.

A per se charge focuses solely on whether the driver’s blood or breath alcohol content (BAC) was above the legal limit, now.08 percent in all 50 states. When attempting to prove a per se charge, the prosecutor focuses on the driver’s BAC and per se do not attempt to prove that the driver was impaired or affected by alcohol.

Chemical testing of the blood, breath or urine is therefore central to the per se charge, where the defendant is accused of driving above the legal limit. However, chemical tests are also a critical aspect of the common law drunk driving case, which focuses on whether or not the driver was impaired. This is because many experts believe that all drivers are impaired once they are above a certain BAC.

Some forensic experts believe that everyone is impaired when their BAC reaches.10 percent, some .08 percent, and the most conservative think that everyone is under the influence at .05 percent BAC. Therefore, it is vital that a DUI defense lawyer be able to successfully address these issues to advance their client’s cause.

Chemical testing is so critical in California DUI  cases that both the DMV and the courts punish drivers who refuse to submit to chemical testing when lawfully requested after a drunk driving arrest. For example, a refusal to test following a drunk driving arrest may result in a driver’s license suspension of one year for a first offense DUI.

In a drunk driving court case, a chemical test refusal is a “special allegation” that, if proven, results in mandatory jail terms, lengthier alcohol education programs, and a jury instruction that allows jurors to consider the refusal to test as consciousness of guilt.

Chemical testing in drunk driving cases or DUI drug arrests involves the testing of bodily fluids – blood, breath, or urine. In most states, when someone is accused of driving under the influence of alcohol, he or she has a right to take either a breath or a blood test.

Where driving under the influence of drugs is suspected, the chemical test choices will usually include blood or urine. Generally, there is no right to a urine test in drunk driving cases. Urine testing in drinking and driving cases has been deemed too unreliable to withstand courtroom challenges.

There are many effective defense challenges to chemical tests in drunk driving cases. While a chemical test may accurately determine BAC at the time of testing, it is not conclusive evidence of BAC at the time of driving. Remember, it isn’t against the law to exceed the legal limit while in a police station; the crime is driving under the influence, or driving above the legal limit, not having a BAC above the legal limit at a later time. Because alcohol levels change over time, this is a critical point to understand.

Chemical testing for alcohol or drugs isn’t always accurate – far from it. There are challenges to breath tests, forensic blood tests, and forensic urine tests. Testing in DUI drugs cases is even more challenging than testing for alcohol levels in a drunk driving case. Drug tests search for metabolites in the blood or urine, not the drug itself. Plus, there are no “per se” limits in drug cases, and because of the time in which many drugs stay in the system, it is incredibly difficult to demonstrate that a person was impaired at the time of driving.

Many drivers accused of DUI believe that a chemical test that shows a BAC greater than .08 percent means a slam-dunk conviction, but that’s simply not the case. However, effectively fighting a driving under the influence case isn’t for amateurs. It’s critical to consult with a California criminal defense attorney with experience fighting drunk driving cases. A skilled attorney can challenge the results of blood, breath, or urine tests, and plan a strategy to fight a drunk driving case.

Drivers arrested for DUI / DWI who refuse to take chemical tests face consequences both in court and with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The refusal can be used to suspend or revoke the person’s driving privileges in a separate DMV action. And although refusing a chemical test means there is no evidence of a driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) to introduce at trial, the refusal can be brought as a separate criminal charge, and the fact that the person refused a chemical test can be used as evidence of “consciousness of guilt.” Fortunately, the skilled defense attorneys of The Kavinoky Law Firm have strategies available to diminish or even eliminate the repercussions of a chemical test refusal.

The most immediate consequences of a chemical test refusal in a California DUI / DWI case will likely occur at the DMV. For a first offense with refusal, the offender’s driver’s license will be suspended for one year, with no opportunity to receive a restricted license.

The penalties are even harsher for multiple drunk driving offenses. Although the Department of Motor Vehicles will suspend the driver’s license of an individual charged with DUI / DWI even if the driver submits to a chemical test, the suspensions are longer for those who refuse.

In a second-offense DUI / DWI case within 10 years of a prior offense, the driver’s license will be suspended for two years. For a third offense within 10 years, the driver’s license will be suspended for three years. For a fourth offense within 10 years, the punishment is the same whether or not the driver refused a chemical test: A four-year revocation of the individual’s driver’s license.

Courts also punish accused drunk drivers for refusing to submit to a chemical test if the prosecutor files the refusal as a separate criminal charge. If the accused DUI / DWI driver isn’t specifically charged with refusal, the court cannot increase the punishment. The refusal must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just like the driving under the influence charge. Further, a person must first be found guilty of the underlying offense of drunk driving in order to be found guilty of refusal.

If the driver is found guilty of both DUI / DWI and refusal to submit to a chemical test, the punishment meted out will depend on the number of prior offenses. The driver may face additional jail time and a longer alcohol education program. This jail time is in addition to any other term imposed by the court.

For a first-offense DUI / DWI with chemical test refusal, the driver faces an additional 48 hours in jail. For a second offense, a refusal means 96 hours of jail. On a third offense with refusal, the penalty is 10 days in jail. For a fourth offense, the jail time is 18 days.

Because of the harsh penalties imposed, it’s in the driver’s best interest to submit to a chemical test when arrested for drunk driving or driving under the influence of drugs, but that’s not always what happens. A lawyer who is well-versed in the consequences of chemical test refusal may be able to ease sanctions against drivers who refuse the test.

Most people who are convicted of a DUI / DWI in California will face jail time, fines, driver’s license suspensions, among other punitive orders. Of the more novel orders is the ignition interlock device. In some cases the ignition interlock device will be mandatory, and at other times, it may be a choice for the driver. A DUI / DWI lawyer will be in a position to assess the viability of the ignition interlock device for their client.

The ignition interlock device attaches to the ignition of a car. A driver will blow into a small alcohol sensor unit that will measure for alcohol on the breath. If there is a certain amount of alcohol on the driver’s breath the car will not start. The BAC of a driver can be adjusted on the device. The device can be set to accept any BAC below .04 percent, but to shut the car down if there is any more than .04 percent alcohol in the driver’s system. The appropriate BAC setting will be determined between a California criminal defense attorney, the judge and the prosecutor.

The ignition interlock device is a sophisticated mechanism that is built to withstand tampering. Furthermore, the device keeps an internal record every time it is removed from its power source in the car. If the device is mandatory, a driver will be penalized for removing it without just cause.

The device is also designed to test the driver’s breath while driving is in progress. Without this feature, a drunk driver may be able to have a sober person blow into the device to get a car started. Therefore, drivers may be required to engage in “rolling re-tests” as they drive. If the BAC spikes above allowed levels during driving, the car will shut down.

The ignition interlock device has been lauded by California DUI / DWI attorneys as well as lawyers from many other states where the popularity of these devices is growing. Studies have shown that where the ignition interlock device has been used, there are fewer repeat offenders. When there are fewer repeat offenders, society benefits. Roads are safer and the court systems are not so clogged with offenders coming in and out on probation violations.

If you believe that the ignition interlock system may be right for you, contact a qualified DUI / DWI lawyer to see if you are eligible to use it. The ignition interlock device can make life easier for a person with a restricted or suspended license if use of the device can eliminate the need for such restrictions or suspensions.

Experienced Los Angeles DUI Attorneys

It is important to hire a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer when faced with a Los Angeles criminal charge. Not all criminal lawyers are the same. You want to make sure that you are given all the resources possible to resolve your criminal case with minimal repercussions. At the Kavinoky Law Firm, you not only get the knowledge and experience to win, you get an entire team working around the clock on your behalf.  Our main objective is to remove all the burdens off your shoulders. Let us handle the case, so you can sleep well at night.
There are many aspects and procedures that can be challenged to help get you off your criminal charge. We spare no expense to make sure we have uncovered all avenues of your Los Angeles criminal case.  We understand the impact of a criminal charge on your life and livelihood.

We focus on a plethora of Los Angeles criminal charges including:
Assault
Appeals
Battery
Bench Warrants
Crimes Against Children
Domestic Violence
DUI
DUI Drugs
Drug Crimes
Drug Possession
Embezzlement
Expungement
Federal Cases
Fraud
Gang Offense
Grand Theft
Investigatory
Manslaughter
Murder
Robbery
Sex Crimes
Violent Crimes
Weapons Crimes
White Collar Crimes

Big-Firm Resources, Small-Firm Feel

• The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a dozen lawyers and a support staff of 25.

• We employ a team approach: Your defense strategy will be engineered by founding lawyer Darren Kavinoky, Senior Supervising Attorney Joel Koury, Northern California Managing Attorney Michael Meehan, and their handpicked team. The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a century of combined legal experience, and over 500 completed jury trials.

• We are one of the largest law firms in California that concentrates on defending cases involving alcohol and drugs. This translates into greater resources for your defense.

• We employ a specialized Intranet Toolkit to ensure all of our attorneys effectively collaborate, share information, and work in concert.

• All of our attorneys use Blackberries or Droids. This means that you’ll receive an immediate response to your emails and phone calls and outstanding customer service.

• We have a network of attorneys throughout the United States for cases that involve issues that cross state lines, such as foreign prior convictions, or those involving out-of-state driver’s licenses that could be impacted by an action in California.

• We conduct frequent comprehensive case-evaluation roundtables, where a “mastermind” group of lawyers each review your case, and come up with the best approach that is designed to achieve the best possible result in your criminal case.

• We have an-house appellate department to address writs and appeals. We are willing and equipped to fight (and have successfully fought), significant legal issues all the way to the Supreme Court.

• We employ a team approach, which translates into more resources to come up with the winning strategy in your case.

Our Los Angeles Offices:
• Encino
• Los Angeles

 

We proudly cover these areas of Greater Los Angeles:
Acton, Agoura, Agoura Hills , Alhambra, Antelope Valley, Arcadia, Artesia, Avalon, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Bradbury, Brentwood, Burbank, Calabasas, Camarillo, Carson, Claremont, Commerce, Canoga Park, Century City, Chatsworth, Commerce, Compton, Covina, Cudahy, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, East Los Angeles, El Monte, El Segundo, Encino, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Industry, Irwindale, La Canada-Flintridge, Lake Balboa, Lakewood, La Mirada, Lancaster, La Puente, La Verne, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles , Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Maywood, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Newhall, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Oxnard, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Quartz Hill, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach , Reseda, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Studio City, Sylmar, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Three Points, Torrance, Valencia, Van Nuys, Ventura, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westwood, West Los Angeles, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills.

California Supreme Court Allows Traffic Stops Based on Uncorroborated Tips

In a setback for privacy and civil rights, the California Supreme Court has ruled that police can use anonymous tips to stop suspected drunk drivers even if the officer doesn’t spot any illegal activity. An attorney plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that a California Highway Patrol officer acted properly when he pulled over a San Joaquin Valley woman after an anonymous caller said her van was weaving, even though the officer witnessed no signs of impairment. The woman later failed a field sobriety test and was arrested for heroin possession.

The ruling gives police in California the broadest powers in the nation to pull over suspected drunk drivers and other motorists based only on anonymous tips. In recent months, the state has posted signs urging motorists to report suspected DUI / DWI drivers to the CHP. Those signs, coupled with the high court’s decision, open the door for abuse by drivers involved in road rage or grudges unrelated to criminal activity.

Three justices opposed the ruling, saying police should not be allowed to stop motorists without witnessing illegal activity. “One of the hallmarks of the liberty guaranteed to persons in this country is that agents of the government cannot arrest, seize or detain them without a good reason,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the minority.

The panel’s ruling comes on the heels of a string of high court decisions that erode the rights of criminal suspects across California and the nation. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that police can enter some DUI / DWI suspects’ homes without a warrant to administer chemical tests.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police can enter suspects’ homes without knocking if they have a valid search warrant. However, the justices also recently ruled that police cannot pat down a suspect for weapons based on an uncorroborated tip.

Defense attorneys decried the California Supreme Court’s ruling on anonymous tips as a setback for privacy and civil rights that may resonate for decades.

“Anyone can call in an anonymous tip for any reason,” said Darren T. Kavinoky, one of California’s top criminal defense attorneys. “This ruling essentially allows police to go on fishing expeditions in the vehicle of any driver unfortunate enough to be the target of an anonymous tipster.”

Despite the setback, motorists arrested for drunk driving or any other criminal offense involving an anonymous tip still have numerous options to launch an effective defense. An experienced California criminal defense attorney can challenge evidence on a number of fronts and dismantle a prosecutor’s case.

The top attorneys of the Kavinoky Law Firm are experienced in defending DUI / DWI cases and other criminal charges throughout California. The firm’s expert attorneys will develop an aggressive defense strategy to challenge charges of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, drug possession, or any other criminal offense.