An appeals court ruled that double jeopardy does not apply when a prosecutor withdraws a guilty plea approved by a judge prior to sentencing and then proceeds to trial. Another court decided that a crime that was not one of specific intent does not allow for an intoxication defense and that the jury instructions were correct in stating that the acts would have been malicious if injury had been foreseen or would have been foreseen but for intoxication. In a third case the court held that a store detective is sufficiently knowledgeable about the workings of a computer to testify about the reliability of its working and the accuracy of the product being submitted as evidence. The final case is one in which a person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol claimed the police officer erred in not giving him the chance to express a preference between blood and urine tests to determine the level of alcohol in his system. The court held that in the wording of the relevant statute, the choice as to the means of testing remains with the police officer. Author comments accompany each case.