If a law changes, can a prior judgement be changed?

[AdmittedGuilty]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin
So I am not denying my guilt by any means. What I did was clearly wrong and I have accepted that for the past decade. My question involves something that has sat in the back of my mind for a few months. Could the outcome of my case been different? I will set it up for you.

At the time, year of 2002, the over the limit BAH was .1. My accident occurred in Dec of 2002, and shortly after, I believe in Feb of 2003 the law became .08.

My incident involved to two intoxicated parties, again I confess my guilt in this matter, but the other driver pulled out in front of me. When breathalyzer she blew a .08 and was let off the hook. Just curious as if proximate cause would have been a whole lot different if this happened now and she blew over the limit?

The case was deemed an unclassified misdemeanor.

thoughts

thanks

 

[justalayman]

google

ex post facto laws

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? So I am not denying my guilt by any means. What I did was clearly wrong and I have accepted that for the past decade. My question involves something that has sat in the back of my mind for a few months. Could the outcome of my case been different? I will set it up for you.

At the time, year of 2002, the over the limit BAH was .1. My accident occurred in Dec of 2002, and shortly after, I believe in Feb of 2003 the law became .08.

My incident involved to two intoxicated parties, again I confess my guilt in this matter, but the other driver pulled out in front of me. When breathalyzer she blew a .08 and was let off the hook. Just curious as if proximate cause would have been a whole lot different if this happened now and she blew over the limit?

Why the choice of the phrase “proximate cause” in “setting up” your question?

“Proximate cause” is a term associated with civil laws dealing with negligence, not criminal law. And here you only mention being convicted of an OWI and nothing said about being party to a civil lawsuit.

If instead you meant to write “probable cause”, that too would seem pointless. As if the level of blood alcohol concentration in the other driver (or some wino in Muskego) would have any consequences as to whether or not the arresting officer was reasonable in the belief that you were over the legal limit.

Wisconsin's act in reducing the BACfrom .01 to .008 in September 2003 really has nothing to do with your question. All you seem to be asking is whether or not had the other driver been over the limit it would somehow affect your conviction. And if there is any logic in that reasoning, it eludes me.

Have a nice day.

 

[davew128]

google

ex post facto laws

I don't know that it's quite the simple. It depends on what the language of the law was at the time. Having a law that specifies what the BAC limit is for DUI doesn't necessarily mean one is not guilty of DUI is BAC is less than that limit if the limit is a per se limit . One would need to look at the statue in effect at the time and review the entire statute and its language. I suspect that the police at the scene did not believe the other driver was otherwise impaired.

 

[justalayman]

I don't know that it's quite the simple. It depends on what the language of the law was at the time. Having a law that specifies what the BAC limit is for DUI doesn't necessarily mean one is not guilty of DUI is BAC is less than that limit if the limit is a per se limit . One would need to look at the statue in effect at the time and review the entire statute and its language. I suspect that the police at the scene did not believe the other driver was otherwise impaired.

altering a law to a more restrictive position and attempting to apply it to a prior situation (as in altering the actual outcome of any criminal issue) is an ex post facto law and are unconstitutional...period.


after reading T's post, I see I missed the OP's point though. OP wants to know if he would somehow been subject to a lesser charge or penalty if the other driver would have been determined to be DUI.

The answer, given the circumstances, it almost assuredly; no

OP was charge and convicted of the crime they were guilty of. Regarldless of the condition of the other person, op was still guilty of the charge. That is not altered by whether the other driver was sober, drunk, asleep, or even intentionally pulled out in front of him.
Of course, if the lesser limit was in place at the time, the other driver too could have been criminally charged based on a per se limit violation.

 

[ecmst12]

It would not have impacted who was determined to be at fault for the accident, either.

 

[davew128]

altering a law to a more restrictive position and attempting to apply it to a prior situation (as in altering the actual outcome of any criminal issue) is an ex post facto law and are unconstitutional...period.

Agreed and not what I was referring to.

What I'm saying is that its possible the law at the time could STILL have had language where the other driver could have been charged and convicted of DUI even though BAC was under the limit at the time. Without researching I don't know if its true or not. At this point, ex post facto notwithstanding, the SOL has almost assuredly expired anyway.

 

[justalayman]

Agreed and not what I was referring to.

What I'm saying is that its possible the law at the time could STILL have had language where the other driver could have been charged and convicted of DUI even though BAC was under the limit at the time. Without researching I don't know if its true or not. At this point, ex post facto notwithstanding, the SOL has almost assuredly expired anyway.

absolutely

and if that is the case, then the prosecutor did not file charges for some reason and that's pretty much the end of it.

I am wondering just how much mental effort the OP has put into this since nothing would have changed as far as he is concerned. Unless he is simply upset that the other driver was not penalized, I'm not getting his purpose. If that is the reason, maybe OP needs to find something else to occupy his life/

 

[ecmst12]

My guess is OP is still paying the bill for the accident he caused in 2002.