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 on a regimen of marijuana and methadone for health issues. After a sleepless night, she drove her brother to a doctor's appointment. On the return trip, she veered off the road, striking and killing a seventy-eight-year-old woman. A jury convicted the Defendant of homicide by vehicle due to driving under the influence of drugs. The Defendant appealed, challenging the admission of evidence regarding her alleged drug impairment and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Daniel A. Bryant, District Court Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court improperly admitted evidence of impairment by drugs, contended the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and claimed the court incorrectly rejected proposed jury instructions (para 8).
• Appellee (State): Asserted that there was a sufficient foundation for the admitted evidence, the evidence supported the conviction, and the district court properly refused the Defendant’s proposed jury instructions (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly admitted evidence concerning the Defendant’s impairment by drugs.
• Whether sufficient evidence supported the Defendant’s conviction.
• Whether the district court incorrectly rejected the Defendant’s proposed jury instructions.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the district court's decision was affirmed (para 37).

Reasons

• The Court found that:
  The State established a sufficient foundation for the admitted evidence of impairment by drugs, including expert testimony on the effects of marijuana and methadone on driving abilities (paras 9-30).
  The evidence, including the Defendant's admission of drug use on the day of the accident, observations during standard field sobriety tests, and expert testimony, supported the conviction for homicide by vehicle due to driving under the influence of drugs (paras 31-33).
  The district court did not err in refusing the Defendant’s proposed jury instructions, as the instructions given allowed the jury to fully consider the Defendant's theory of the case (paras 34-36).