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 of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The conviction was based on evidence that she was under the influence of intoxicating liquor while operating a motor vehicle, which impaired her ability to operate the vehicle. The Defendant and a passenger testified that she did not drive the car but jumped into the driver's seat after the vehicle had stopped. However, this testimony was not accepted by the fact-finder, who relied on an officer's observation of the Defendant in the driver's seat with the vehicle running (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, specifically challenging the evidence related to the "operating a motor vehicle" element. The Defendant and a passenger testified that she did not drive the car but instead jumped into the driver's seat after the vehicle had stopped (paras 2-3).
• Appellee (State): Relied on the officer's testimony indicating that the Defendant was driving the vehicle, as observed through the driver's side window and found in the driver's seat with the vehicle running when stopped by the officer (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, particularly regarding the element of "operating a motor vehicle."

Disposition

• The appeal from the district court judgment affirming the Defendant's DWI conviction was affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Michael D. Bustamante, and J. Miles Hanisee, unanimously affirmed the district court's judgment. The court applied a two-step process for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that to convict the Defendant of DWI, it had to be shown that she was under the influence while operating a motor vehicle and that this impaired her ability to operate the vehicle. Despite the Defendant's challenge to the evidence regarding her operation of the vehicle, the fact-finder rejected the testimony of the Defendant and a passenger, instead relying on the officer's testimony. The court emphasized that the fact-finder is free to reject a defendant's version of events and that circumstantial evidence can support a DWI conviction (paras 2-4).