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

• On May 25, 2010, a small business owner reported an old pick-up truck parked outside her business, expressing concern it looked bad and might belong to a drunk driver. She had seen the Defendant park and leave the truck, returning after about an hour, on several occasions. When police arrived, they found the Defendant in the driver's seat with the truck off, displaying signs of intoxication. The Defendant, who had a blood alcohol content of .08, claimed he was waiting for a phone call and had no intention of driving. He was convicted of DWI, marking his fifth offense.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued there was insufficient evidence for a DWI conviction as the State failed to prove actual physical control of the vehicle while intoxicated and intent to drive.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's presence in the driver's seat with keys, combined with his statements and condition, constituted actual physical control and intent to drive under the influence.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, specifically regarding actual physical control of the vehicle and intent to drive while intoxicated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the Defendant for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring), the court found no merit in the Defendant's argument against his DWI conviction. The court relied on the totality of circumstances, including the Defendant's presence in the driver's seat with the keys and his statements about intending to leave upon receiving a phone call for work, to affirm the conviction. The court distinguished this case from precedent by emphasizing the Defendant's demonstrated intent to drive and the actual physical control over the vehicle, as opposed to merely being a passive occupant or using the vehicle for shelter. The court rejected the Defendant's narrative as contrived and found sufficient evidence of his intent to drive and actual physical control of the vehicle while intoxicated.