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 passed out in the driver’s seat of a car parked on the shoulder of the road with the engine running. A police officer observed a strong odor of alcohol and had difficulty waking the Defendant. The Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), second offense (paras 2, 12-13).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: The Defendant was convicted of DWI, second offense, and sentenced to 364 days in jail, with 360 days suspended, along with probation, community service, fines, and counseling (para 2).
- District Court: On appeal for a trial de novo, the Defendant was convicted of DWI, first offense, in a bench trial and sentenced to two days in jail, fines, and probation (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was entitled to a jury trial in district court because he was charged with DWI, second offense, which carried a potential sentence exceeding six months. He also contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove "driving activity" (paras 1, 3, 12).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial because the charge in district court was effectively a "basic charge" of DWI, first offense, which carried a maximum penalty of 90 days. The Plaintiff also argued that the evidence was sufficient to establish the Defendant’s control of the vehicle (paras 3, 12).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury trial in district court based on the charge of DWI, second offense?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish the Defendant’s "driving activity" for the purposes of the DWI charge?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial with a jury in district court (para 14).
- The Court held that the State presented sufficient evidence of the Defendant’s control of the vehicle to support the DWI charge (para 14).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Armijo and Hartz JJ. concurring):
The Defendant was entitled to a jury trial in district court because the original charge of DWI, second offense, carried a potential sentence of 364 days, exceeding the six-month threshold for a "serious crime" under the Sixth Amendment. The State did not amend the charge to DWI, first offense, before trial, and the possibility of enhanced penalties for the second offense remained at the time of trial. The Court emphasized that the right to a jury trial is determined by the potential penalty at the time of the charge, not the actual sentence imposed (paras 5-11).
On the issue of "driving activity," the Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The officer’s testimony that the Defendant was found in the driver’s seat of a car with the engine running, combined with the odor of alcohol and the Defendant’s condition, was sufficient to establish that the Defendant was in control of the vehicle under the DWI statute (paras 12-13).
Per Hartz J. (concurring):
Hartz J. agreed with the majority opinion but wrote separately to clarify that the Court did not address whether there is a constitutional right to a jury trial in district court following a jury trial in magistrate court, as this issue was not raised by the State (para 16).