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 for aggravated driving while under the influence ("DUI"). Prior to his arrest, he was observed being belligerent in a convenience store, then getting into his truck and driving. His behavior and subsequent driving led to his arrest and conviction for DUI.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the testimony regarding his belligerence in the convenience store was not relevant to whether he drove the truck, which was the issue presented by the witness's testimony. He also contended that the breath card used to establish his Blood Alcohol Concentration (B.A.C.) at the time of his arrest was inadmissible due to it being hearsay and lacking a proper foundation for its admission. Furthermore, the Defendant suggested it was fundamental error for the district court to give a lesser-included jury instruction on DUI.
• Appellee: The State argued that the testimony about the Defendant's belligerence was relevant to establishing his intoxication before driving, which is an element of DUI. They also defended the admissibility of the breath card and supported the district court's decision to give a lesser-included jury instruction on DUI.

Legal Issues

• Whether the testimony regarding the Defendant's belligerence prior to driving was relevant to his intoxication and, thus, his DUI charge.
• Whether the breath card used to establish the Defendant's B.A.C. was admissible.
• Whether it was error for the district court to give a lesser-included jury instruction on DUI.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DUI.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring):
  The Court found the testimony regarding the Defendant's belligerence relevant to the question of whether he was intoxicated before getting into his truck, as intoxication is an element of DUI. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's assertion that the testimony was not relevant to whether he drove the truck, stating that evidence of intoxication is generally relevant in DUI prosecutions.
  Regarding the admissibility of the breath card, the Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments that it was hearsay and lacked a proper foundation for its admission. The Court continued to support its initial disposition that the breath card was admissible.
  The Court found no error in the district court’s instructions to the jury regarding the lesser-included offense of DUI. It was noted that there was sufficient evidence, including testimony of the Defendant's driving and his inability or unwillingness to perform field sobriety tests, from which the jury could infer that the Defendant was impaired by alcohol while driving.