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 charged with aggravated DWI (seventh offense) after being observed by a police officer driving a truck in a yard, performing "donuts," and spinning tires. Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer noted signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. The Defendant admitted to consuming twelve beers and failed field sobriety tests. A breath test revealed a blood alcohol content of .19 and .18 grams per 210 liters. The Defendant claimed he was not driving and was merely standing near the truck drinking beer when officers arrived.
Procedural History
- District Court, Roosevelt County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated DWI (seventh offense) and sentenced accordingly.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was driving the vehicle, citing conflicting testimony and asserting that the officer's observations were unclear. The Defendant maintained that he was outside the truck when officers arrived and was not in "actual physical control" of the vehicle.
- Appellee (State): Presented evidence from two officers, including testimony that the Defendant was observed driving the truck and performing "donuts." The State argued that the jury was entitled to resolve conflicting evidence and that substantial evidence supported the conviction.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI, particularly regarding whether the Defendant was driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.
Reasons
Per Fry CJ (Sutin and Castillo JJ. concurring):
The Court applied a two-step analysis for sufficiency of evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the first officer, who observed the Defendant driving, over the Defendant's claim that he was not driving. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the Defendant was driving and in actual physical control of the vehicle, satisfying the statutory requirements for aggravated DWI.