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 aggravated driving while intoxicated. The police encountered the Defendant at the home of his wife's sister, where he was found in the driver's seat of his parked vehicle, suggesting recent driving. The Defendant argued that there was no direct evidence of him driving while intoxicated, such as an admission or direct observation by officers. However, there was circumstantial evidence, including the Defendant's admission of driving to the scene, a parking violation, unopened beer bottles, and observations of the Defendant's appearance, smell, and behavior, indicating impairment.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence of past driving while intoxicated and focused on the lack of "actual physical control" of the vehicle with intent to drive in the future. The Defendant also contested the proposed conclusion of sufficient evidence of past driving, emphasizing the absence of direct evidence.
• Appellee (State): Supported the conviction, arguing that there was substantial evidence of the Defendant driving to the location while impaired, including circumstantial evidence and the Defendant's admission.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was substantial evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated based on past driving.
• Whether the concept of "actual physical control" of the vehicle with a general intent to drive in the future was necessary to uphold the conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., with James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael D. Bustamante, J., concurring: The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the proposed conclusion of sufficient evidence of past driving while intoxicated. The Defendant's focus on the lack of direct evidence and "actual physical control" did not address the circumstantial evidence that supported the conviction. The Court highlighted the Defendant's admission of driving to the scene, the parking violation, unopened beer bottles, and observations of the Defendant's appearance, smell, and behavior as sufficient circumstantial evidence of impairment. The Court also noted that any ambiguities in evidence regarding the Defendant's location relative to the vehicle upon police arrival were for the fact finder to resolve. The decision to affirm was based on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the Defendant's admission, supporting the conclusion that the Defendant drove while impaired to the slightest degree.