A DUI causing injury arrest is one of the most serious situations you can face after a traffic stop or accident. You may be dealing with police, insurance calls, medical issues, vehicle damage, and the fear that your case is automatically a felony—or that you’ll lose your license and freedom.
Here’s the truth: a DUI injury case is not automatically “open and shut.” Vehicle Code 23153 cases have extra legal elements that the prosecution must prove—beyond the usual DUI allegations. And because these cases often involve accident dynamics, injuries, timelines, and testing, there are many points where the evidence can break down.
This page and website provide general information in plain English, not legal advice. Laws and local court/DMV practices vary and can change, so don’t rely on this content for your case—talk to a qualified attorney promptly to review your specific facts, especially if you face charges, a DMV action, or a deadline. In many cases, you’re fighting two battles at once: the DMV process and the criminal court case.
What Is DUI Causing Injury Under Vehicle Code 23153?
Vehicle Code 23153 is California’s DUI “injury” statute. In plain English, it applies when the prosecution alleges three things: first, that you were driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both; second, that while driving you committed an illegal act or were negligent; and third, that the illegal act or negligence caused bodily injury to someone other than the driver.
That last part is what changes everything. A standard DUI focuses on impairment. A DUI injury case adds two extra battles—causation and injury—and those issues often become the center of the defense, especially when the facts are disputed or the other driver’s conduct played a role.
“Injury” and “Causation” Are Separate Issues
In DUI injury cases, prosecutors typically must prove not only DUI, but also that your driving conduct—an illegal act or negligence—was a substantial factor in causing another person’s injury. In other words, it’s not enough for the state to argue “there was a DUI and there was an injury.” The prosecution still has to connect the injury to your specific driving conduct in a legally meaningful way, and that “substantial factor” requirement is often where defense strategy focuses.
This page and website provide general information in plain English, not legal advice. Laws and local court/DMV practices vary and can change, so don’t rely on this content for your case—talk to a qualified attorney promptly to review your specific facts, especially if you face charges, a DMV action, or a deadline. In many cases, you’re fighting two battles at once: the DMV process and the criminal court case.
VC 23153(a) vs. 23153(b): What’s the Difference?
Vehicle Code 23153 has multiple “tracks” depending on how the state frames the DUI portion of the case. Some DUI-injury cases are built around an impairment theory, while others are built around a BAC theory, and it’s common for prosecutors to file both.
VC 23153(a): Impairment-Based Injury DUI
VC 23153(a) is the impairment-based version. The focus is on whether alcohol (or drugs, depending on the way the case is charged) impaired your ability to drive with the caution of a sober person using ordinary care. In other words, the state’s theory is not just that you consumed something, but that it actually affected your driving ability, and the jury instruction framework for DUI injury uses that impairment standard to define “under the influence.”
VC 23153(b): BAC-Based (“Per Se”) Injury DUI
VC 23153(b) is the BAC-based, “per se” version tied to an alleged BAC of 0.08% or higher. This track also involves a rebuttable presumption connected to a chemical test taken within three hours after driving, which is why the timeline between driving and testing can matter a lot in real cases and why the underlying test procedure and documentation can become central issues.
Either way, the prosecution still has to prove the extra elements that don’t exist in a standard DUI case—namely, that an illegal act or negligence occurred and that it was a substantial factor in causing bodily injury to someone other than the driver.
What the Prosecutor Must Prove in a DUI Injury Case
The DUI injury jury instruction outline (CALCRIM 2100) is a useful way to understand what the state has to prove in a VC 23153 case. In simplified terms, prosecutors generally try to establish that you drove a vehicle, that you were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and that while driving under the influence you committed an illegal act or neglected a legal duty. The state must also prove causation and injury—specifically, that the illegal act or failure to perform a legal duty caused bodily injury to another person.
This is why “I had a drink” is not the same thing as “I’m guilty of VC 23153.” DUI injury cases depend on proof of multiple elements, and each element can be challenged with evidence, timelines, and a careful review of what actually happened.
Why These Cases Get Filed as Felonies (and When They Don’t)
In practice, DUI causing injury is often filed as a felony, especially when the injuries are alleged to be significant, when there are multiple injured people, or when there are aggravating factors such as high speed or prior DUIs. Prosecutors may also file felony charges because it gives them leverage in negotiations and raises the pressure early in the case.
The key point for your defense strategy, however, is that the filing decision is not the final outcome. The defense focuses on attacking the weakest links—whether the state can actually prove DUI, whether causation is clear, whether the injury claims are supported by the facts, whether the accident mechanics make sense, and whether the testing evidence is reliable. When injuries are minimal, the medical proof is thin, or causation is genuinely disputed, there may be opportunities to fight for reduced charges or a more favorable resolution.
Common Evidence in VC 23153 Cases
DUI injury cases are typically built on multiple layers of evidence, starting with accident reports, diagrams, and “primary collision factor” allegations about who caused the crash. Prosecutors often rely on witness statements as well, even though they can be incomplete or inconsistent in a chaotic, fast-moving event. Video can be central—bodycam and dashcam footage may confirm or contradict key claims about driving behavior, symptoms, and what was said during the investigation.
The file may also include field sobriety tests if they were performed, along with breath test results if taken, but blood testing is very common in injury cases due to hospital involvement and the seriousness of the allegation. Medical records and injury claims often become a major part of the case, and timeline evidence—driving time to collision, collision to police contact, and police contact to testing time—can raise important questions about what the test results actually prove.
A serious DUI injury defense often requires going beyond the police report and rebuilding what happened using video, scene evidence, timelines, and—when appropriate—accident reconstruction.
Penalties for a First VC 23153 Conviction (Overview)
Penalties depend heavily on whether the case is filed as a misdemeanor or felony, the injury allegations, priors, and whether any enhancements apply. But California’s sentencing provision for a first violation of VC 23153 states that punishment can include imprisonment in state prison or county jail for not less than 90 days and not more than one year, a fine of $390 to $1,000, and a DMV license suspension under the referenced DMV section.
In addition to the core sentence, DUI injury cases often involve restitution issues, stricter probation terms (if probation is granted), and a more aggressive prosecution posture. Because the stakes are higher, the defense strategy has to be sharper—especially on causation, injury proof, accident mechanics, and testing reliability.
Defenses That Can Win DUI Injury Cases
A strong DUI injury defense usually doesn’t rely on a single argument. Instead, it pressure-tests every element the prosecution must prove—DUI, an illegal act or negligence, causation, and bodily injury—and looks for the weakest links in the state’s theory.
Challenging Causation: Did Your Act Actually Cause the Injury?
In a VC 23153 case, the state must prove your illegal act or negligence was a substantial factor in causing someone else’s injury. That’s often the main battleground, because collisions can have multiple contributing causes. Defense focus may include what the other driver did—speeding, unsafe lane changes, red-light violations, or other conduct that caused or contributed to the crash. It may also include road design, visibility, weather conditions, and mechanical issues. Another common issue is whether the claimed injury was truly caused by the collision, or whether the medical condition has unrelated causes or intervening factors that the prosecution is overlooking.
Challenging the DUI Allegation Itself
Even in an injury case, the DUI allegation still has to be proven. A defense will examine whether the stop and investigation were lawful, whether the officer’s observations match the video, whether field sobriety tests are reliable under the conditions they were performed, and whether chemical testing evidence is valid and properly supported. Injury allegations do not “fill in” missing proof on the DUI elements—each piece still has to stand on admissible, reliable evidence.
Breath Test Defenses (If Alcohol Testing Is Central)
If alcohol evidence is a major part of the case, breath testing can be challenged on reliability and procedure. Common issues include device maintenance and calibration questions, operator error and procedure violations, and factors like mouth alcohol, GERD, and timing that can distort results. In many cases, the timeline matters just as much as the number, because “rising BAC” issues can undermine whether the test actually reflects BAC at the time of driving.
Blood Test Defenses (Very Common in Injury Cases)
Blood testing is very common in injury cases, but it is not immune from challenge. These cases can hinge on chain of custody and handling, storage and preservation issues, contamination or fermentation risk, documentation gaps, and lab methodology problems. Interpretation can also be a major dispute—especially when drugs are involved—because a lab result may show presence without proving impairment at the time of driving.
Injury Proof: What Counts as “Bodily Injury” Here?
“Injury” is not always as straightforward as it sounds, and it can become a contested issue in VC 23153 cases. The defense may examine how the injury is documented, whether the claimed injury is consistent with the mechanics of the collision, and whether pre-existing conditions played a role. In some cases, the defense also pushes back on exaggeration or overstatement of injuries, especially when the prosecution uses injury allegations to increase leverage.
Accident Reconstruction and Timeline Defense
In many DUI injury cases, one of the strongest approaches is rebuilding what happened using scene evidence, video, and a tight timeline. That includes when you were last driving, when the crash occurred, when police arrived, and when any breath or blood testing happened. This matters particularly when prosecutors try to lean heavily on chemical testing and “work backwards” to claim impairment, even though real-world timelines can complicate those assumptions.
Multiple Victims and “Enhancement” Exposure (Case-Specific)
When the prosecution alleges more severe injuries or multiple injured victims, the stakes can increase significantly, and the defense strategy has to be built around what is actually alleged and what the evidence can truly prove. In some cases, the state may pursue enhanced allegations tied to the severity of injuries, but those claims are highly fact-specific and often depend on how the medical evidence and causation issues play out.
DMV License Suspension After a DUI Injury Arrest
Even while the criminal case is pending, your license can be at risk through the DMV’s separate administrative process. California DMV guidance explains that a hearing must be requested within 10 days of receiving notice, or 14 days from the date of the notice if it was mailed, or you can forfeit your hearing rights.
That’s why DUI defense is time-sensitive. A strong attorney often coordinates the DMV strategy and the court strategy from the start so you’re not fighting blind on either front—and so your approach in one case doesn’t unintentionally harm the other.
What to Do After a DUI Accident With Injuries
If you or someone else was injured and you’re now facing a VC 23153 allegation, the steps you take early can affect both your defense and your driver’s license. Start by speaking with a DUI injury attorney immediately, because early action can help preserve evidence, identify time-sensitive DMV issues, and prevent the case from being shaped entirely by the initial police report.
While the details are still fresh, write down your timeline in one place—when you were driving, when the crash occurred, what you ate or drank, what medications you took (if any), when law enforcement arrived, and when any breath or blood testing occurred. In DUI injury cases, timing and accident mechanics often matter just as much as the testing results.
You should also preserve evidence as soon as possible. Photos of the scene and vehicles, tow paperwork, medical paperwork, and any relevant messages or call logs around the incident can become important later—especially if the case turns into a dispute about causation, fault, or what actually happened before and after the collision.
Just as important, avoid discussing fault or details with anyone besides your lawyer. Statements can be used against you in both the criminal case and any related civil injury claim, and even well-intended explanations can be taken out of context. Finally, address DMV issues quickly, because DMV hearing rights can be lost fast if a hearing isn’t requested on time—and protecting your ability to keep driving while the case is pending is often a major coordinated goal.
DUI Causing Injury FAQs
Is DUI causing injury automatically a felony?
Not always, but it is often filed as a felony depending on the injuries and circumstances. The defense strategy should assume high stakes from day one.
Do they have to prove I caused the accident?
They generally must prove your illegal act or negligence caused injury—causation is a critical element in the jury instruction framework.
Does a positive drug test automatically prove I was impaired?
Not automatically. Presence and impairment are not the same thing, and timelines and interpretation matter.
What if I used marijuana hours earlier and felt fine?
That’s a common scenario. The defense depends on the timeline, video, testing interpretation, and whether evidence proves impairment at the time of driving.