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 causing great bodily harm by vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, following a serious traffic collision that resulted in great bodily harm to another person. The Defendant had exhibited signs of intoxication, including an odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes, and admitted to taking sleeping pills.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the affidavit supporting the issuance of a search warrant for a blood draw was insufficient and that the evidence at trial did not prove he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Suggested that it was possible for him to have consumed alcohol after the accident but before being transported to the hospital (paras 4, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the affidavit contained sufficient facts for the issuing judge to find probable cause and that the evidence at trial supported the conviction. Emphasized the Defendant's signs of intoxication and the circumstances of the collision as indicative of his inability to drive safely due to the influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs (paras 2-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the affidavit supporting the issuance of a search warrant for a blood draw contained sufficient facts to establish probable cause.
• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the accident causing great bodily harm.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's conviction for causing great bodily harm by vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, with Kristina Bogardus and Megan P. Duffy concurring: The Court found that the affidavit for the search warrant contained sufficient facts from which the issuing judge could infer probable cause, based on the Defendant's behavior and the circumstances of the collision (para 2). Regarding the sufficiency of evidence at trial, the Court noted that when evidence supports more than one reasonable finding, the jury's verdict indicates they found the hypothesis of guilt more reasonable than that of innocence. The Court emphasized that the jury is free to reject the Defendant's version of the facts and that appellate courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the fact-finder (para 4). The decision to affirm was based on these considerations and the detailed reasoning provided in the notice of proposed summary disposition (para 5).