than .08 a the time of the accident, then the jury must also find that the defendant was guilty of the DUI offense. In this case, one expert fixed the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the crash as .185 or .19. A second expert testified that the defendant had the equivalent of eleven drinks of alcohol in his body at the time of the crash. According to the testimony, the maximum blood alcohol level he could have had at the time of the accident was .20, and the minimum was .12. The defendant had also ingested Valium, which further impaired him. The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove with an unlawful blood alcohol level. As in Dodge, any presumption of impairment issues was a moot concern. See also Searles v. State, 816 So.2d 793, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). The trial court believed that the granting of
holding that the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was harmless error when there is sufficient evidence of actual impairment such that there is no doubt that the jury would have found impairment even without the erroneous instruction holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction