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 convicted of multiple charges, including driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs (.08 or above) (Sixth Offense) (DWI), driving on a suspended or revoked license, open container, and littering. The charges stemmed from an incident where the Defendant was observed by an officer turning off the road onto a vacant lot, apparently to evade a DWI checkpoint. The Defendant was found sitting unbuckled in the passenger seat of a stopped truck, with a female exiting from the passenger side. The Defendant initially denied driving but later admitted to it. The officer noted an odor of alcohol, and the Defendant was unable to complete field sobriety tests satisfactorily. Breath alcohol samples from the Defendant read .08.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that (1) the jury instructions for the charges of open container and littering omitted requisite statutory language, constituting fundamental error, (2) the district court improperly allowed testimony relating to non-standardized field sobriety tests, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
• Appellee: The State's specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text, but it is implied that the State defended the convictions and the procedures of the trial court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the omission of requisite statutory language from the jury instructions for the charges of open container and littering constituted fundamental error.
• Whether the district court improperly allowed testimony relating to non-standardized field sobriety tests.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The conviction for open container was reversed.
• The remaining convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court found that:
  Regarding the open container charge, the conviction was reversed due to insufficient evidence, specifically the lack of evidence regarding whether the cans still contained alcohol or had been opened by the Defendant while driving (paras 11-12).
  Regarding the DWI charge, the Court held that the jury instructions did not constitute fundamental error as they included the necessary element of "intent to drive" and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction under the "slightest degree" alternative, including the Defendant's admission of driving, the odor of alcohol, and his failure to complete field sobriety tests satisfactorily (paras 4-5, 13-15).
  Regarding the charge of driving on a suspended or revoked license, the Defendant's stipulation that his license had been revoked was noted, and the sufficiency of evidence for driving was deemed adequate, rendering this issue without merit (para 16).
  Regarding the littering charge, the Court concluded that the jury could reasonably infer the Defendant's intent to discard open beer cans and that there was direct evidence of the Defendant discarding the cans, thus supporting the conviction (paras 17-18).
  On the issue of non-standardized field sobriety tests, the Court determined that the district court did not err by allowing testimony on these tests without scientific foundational evidence, as they involved basic motor skills and were relevant to the Defendant's impairment (paras 8-9).