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 Intoxicated (DWI) after being stopped by an officer who observed the Defendant's vehicle drifting across the left lane twice around 2:15 a.m. Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer detected an odor of alcohol on the Defendant's breath and noted slurred speech. A DWI unit officer conducted further investigation, observing that the Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes and a strong odor of alcohol emanating from her facial area. The Defendant also exhibited difficulty performing field sobriety tests, swaying during two of the tests and dropping her leg on several occasions during the third test.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction under the "slightest degree" theory of DWI. The Defendant also contended that inconsistencies in witness testimony and the lack of "baseline" information on her mobility rendered the evidence against her insufficient for a conviction.
• Appellee: The State argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, emphasizing the observations made by the officers at the time of the Defendant's arrest and her performance on the field sobriety tests.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI under the "slightest degree" theory.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• Per VIGIL, J. (WECHSLER, J., and FRY, J., concurring): The Court conducted a two-step review process to assess the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Defendant's DWI conviction. It first considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, then determined whether a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence, including the officer's observations of the Defendant's vehicle drifting, the odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot and watery eyes, and difficulty with field sobriety tests. The Court deferred to the metropolitan court's interpretation of the evidence and its resolution of factual inconsistencies, rejecting the Defendant's arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence and the necessity for "baseline" information on her mobility. The Court also declined to re-weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder, citing precedent that emphasizes the sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict.