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 driving while under the influence (DUI), impaired to the slightest degree. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and argued that the metropolitan court erred in denying his motion to suppress due to lack of reasonable suspicion.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his DUI conviction and that the metropolitan court erred in denying his motion to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DUI.
• Whether the metropolitan court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• The decision was delivered by Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Kristina Bogardus concurring. The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded by the arguments presented. The Court declined the Defendant's invitation to view the evidence in a light more favorable to him, emphasizing that it is not the appellate court's role to supplant the lower court's view of the evidence or to re-weigh the evidence against other possible hypotheses supporting innocence. The Court relied on precedent stating that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, and merely repeating earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement (paras 1-3).