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 charged with DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) on July 10, 2019, following an incident at Coronado Mall. A mall security guard, observing signs of intoxication, asked the defendant to leave a restaurant and subsequently observed her driving. The security guard stopped her vehicle and sought assistance from a State police officer present at the mall. Another officer arrived approximately 45 minutes later and initiated a DWI investigation after finding the defendant standing on a median across from the mall. The defendant failed field sobriety tests and registered above the legal limit on a breath alcohol test (paras 3, 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court should have excluded the testimony of a State witness due to failure to comply with discovery deadlines and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, particularly questioning the evidence of driving while impaired due to a 45-minute gap between being asked to leave the mall and the commencement of the DWI investigation (paras 2-3, 5-7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's DWI conviction under the "impaired to the slightest degree" theory and contended that the metropolitan court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the testimony of the mall security officer despite the late disclosure of surveillance footage (paras 2, 4-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court should have excluded the testimony of a State witness as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery deadlines.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for DWI under the "impaired to the slightest degree" theory.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction of the defendant for DWI (slightest degree) (para 8).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Megan P. Duffy and Zachary A. Ives concurring, the Court of Appeals held that the metropolitan court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude the testimony of the State witness despite the late disclosure of surveillance footage. The decision was based on the application of factors including the State's culpability, the prejudice to the defendant, and the availability of lesser sanctions. The court found minimal prejudice to the defendant, who had interviewed the witness prior to the availability of the tape and had three weeks to review the tape for impeachment value. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the court concluded that the testimony of the mall security guard, the defendant's failure in sobriety tests, and her admission of driving while drunk were sufficient to support the conviction under the "slightest degree" alternative of DWI, despite the defendant's argument about the 45-minute gap between the eviction from the mall and the DWI investigation (paras 2-7).