WI · jury_instructions
Wis JI-Criminal 2690
Operating a Commercial Motor Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration of 0.04 Grams or More but Less Than 0.08 Grams - Criminal Offense
Statutory Definition of the Crime
Section 346.63(5)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes is violated by one who drives or
operates a commercial motor vehicle on a highway 1 while that person has an alcohol
concentration of .04 or more but less than .08.
State's Burden of Proof
Before you may find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove by
evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following two elements
were present.
Elements of the Crime That the State Must Prove
1. The defendant (drove) (operated) a commercial motor vehicle 2 on a highway. 3
Definition of "Drive" or "Operate"
["Drive" means the exercise of physical control over the speed and direction
of a motor vehicle while it is in motion.] 4
["Operate" means the physical manipulation or activation of any of the
controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion.] 5
2. The defendant had an alcohol concentration of .04 or more but less than .08 6 at
the time the defendant (drove) (operated) a commercial motor vehicle.
How to Use the Test Result Evidence
WHERE TEST RESULTS SHOWING 0.04 GRAMS OR MORE HAVE BEEN
ADMITTED 7 AND THERE IS NO ISSUE RELATING TO THE
DEFENDANT'S POSITION ON THE "BLOOD-ALCOHOL CURVE," 8 THE
JURY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:
The law states that the alcohol concentration in a defendant's (breath) (blood) (urine)
sample taken within three hours of (driving) (operating) a motor vehicle is evidence of
the defendant's alcohol concentration at the time of the (driving) (operating). If you are
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was [.04 grams or more of alcohol in 100
milliliters of the defendant's blood] [.04 grams or more of alcohol in 210 liters of the
defendant's breath] at the time the test was taken, you may find from that fact alone that
the defendant had an alcohol concentration of .04 or more at the time of the alleged
(driving) (operating), but you are not required to do so. You the jury are here to decide
this question on the basis of all the evidence in this case, and you should not find that the
defendant had an alcohol concentration of .04 or more at the time of the alleged (driving)
(operating), unless you are satisfied of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
IF AN APPROVED TESTING DEVICE IS INVOLVED, THE FOLLOWING
MAY BE ADDED: 9
[The law recognizes that the testing device used in this case uses a scientifically
sound method of measuring the alcohol concentration of an individual. The State is not
required to prove the underlying scientific reliability of the method used by the testing
device. However, the State is required to establish that the testing device was in proper
working order and that it was correctly operated by a qualified person.]
Jury's Decision
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that both elements of this offense have
been proved, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.
History
Wis JI-Criminal 2690 (2004). Release No. 42, 4/2004. © 2004, Regents, Univ. of Wis. Prepared by the Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.
Provenance
- Source
- wilawlibrary.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
df2ed3f2a72bc4e70dd1c773e1b54921bd2dc6bbf9bb8aa9421b50bc7b2aca1c
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.