AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was found by an officer with her vehicle stopped in two lanes of traffic, displaying hazard lights. She was in the driver's seat, alone, and exhibited signs of alcohol consumption, including an odor of alcohol and bloodshot, watery eyes. The Defendant admitted to drinking "way earlier" before the encounter. The vehicle's keys were in the ignition, and the Defendant had engaged the clutch. There was no direct evidence of the Defendant driving while impaired, but circumstantial evidence suggested past driving under the influence (paras 3-4, 7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for driving while under the influence, challenging both the theories of "past driving" and "actual, physical control" with intent to drive. The Defendant also contested the sufficiency of evidence regarding impairment and the general intent to drive, especially given the vehicle's inoperability (paras 2, 4-5, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to infer that the Defendant drove while impaired and was in actual physical control of the vehicle with the intent to drive, despite the vehicle's inoperability. The State highlighted the Defendant's physical symptoms of impairment, her admission to drinking, and her behavior during the encounter as evidence (paras 3, 5, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for driving while under the influence, under theories of "past driving" and "actual, physical control" with a general intent to drive.
• Whether the Defendant's vehicle's inoperability affects the determination of actual physical control and intent to drive (paras 2, 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (para 10).

Reasons

• KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge (with MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge concurring):
  The Court held that circumstantial evidence alone could be sufficient for a fact-finder to infer that the accused drove while impaired. It found the evidence of the Defendant's physical condition, her admission to drinking, and her behavior sufficient to support the conviction. The Court also addressed the Defendant's contention regarding the vehicle's inoperability, stating that operability is relevant but not dispositive in determining actual physical control. The Court concluded that the totality of the circumstances, including the Defendant's actions and the vehicle's position, indicated an intent to drive, thereby supporting the conviction under both theories of DWI. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments in her memorandum in opposition and affirmed the conviction based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion (paras 1-10).