by auto and several motor vehicle offenses. The evidence at trial indicated that his BAC at the time of the accident was .253%. Id. at 5, 671 A.2d 1045. The defendant there argued that the court erred in “instruct[ing] the jurors that if they found defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.10 percent or higher they could presume recklessness.” Id. at 12, 671 A.2d 1045. We found that the court “never mentioned a presumption, but merely told the jurors that if they found this level of blood alcohol, it was one factor from which they could infer recklessness. This was proper.” Ibid. Where alcohol is presented as evidence of recklessness, the State must present evidence of the defendant’s BAC at the time of the incident. State v. Casele, 198 N.J.Super. 462, 472, 487 A.2d 765 (App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, although the State argued that
holding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate retaliation for activities that occurred two years prior to the termination holding in part that awareness of resale activities together with evidence of kickback relationship is sufficient to support conviction for conspiracy to distribute holding that evidence of intoxication together with the circumstances of the accident were sufficient to demonstrate recklessness recognizing that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate a defendants guilt holding that red flags along with the defendants positions within the company were sufficient to demonstrate scienter