 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larsen v. State12/6/2001
Marie Jean Larsen appeals her conviction of driving under the influence following a bench trial, arguing that the court erred by "ignoring the overwhelming evidence" that she did not intend to drive. She also contends on appeal that the trial court "was biased and failed to hear case impartially."
At her bench trial, Larsen stipulated that she was a less safe driver and that her blood alcohol level was .184 to .189. She defended the charges on the ground that she did not intend to drive, but was sleepwalking, and therefore did not have the guilty mind necessary for conviction.
On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence with all inferences in favor of the factfinder's conclusion, giving due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge witness credibility. Poole v. State, 249 Ga. App. 409, 410 (1) (548 SE2d 113) (2001). The issue before us is whether the evidence was sufficient at trial to support a conviction under the standards of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the evidence at trial established that Larsen had a medical condition known as fibromyalgia, and that one of her symptoms was an inability to sleep. To treat this disorder, every night at bedtime she took an antidepressant, a muscle relaxant, an anti-anxiety medication, and a fourth drug often used to treat Parkinson's disease. She testified that the night she was arrested, she had taken her prescribed medication at bedtime after drinking three glasses of wine earlier that evening, and remembered nothing else until she woke up handcuffed in the back of a police car. She said that she did not remember drinking any more wine or getting in the car, that she would not have purposefully gone outside barefoot in short pajamas and a sweater, and that she had been a lifelong, vocal opponent to drinking and driving. Her daughter confirmed that her mother was adamantly opposed to drinking and driving, but further testified that on two previous occasions, she found her mother so intoxicated from drinking and taking her medication that she had passed out. The daughter also testified that she had argued with her mother about drinking and taking these drugs after the last time she passed out.
A doctor of pharmacology who specializes in sleep disorders and the drugs used to treat them testified that sleepwalking is a recognized side effect of the medications Larsen had been taking, particularly when taken in combination with each other and with alcohol. When a person sleepwalks, she can appear to be functioning normally, but would not be consciously aware of her actions and would remember nothing that occurred during the incident until she woke up. The expert also testified that the manufacturer's insert that should have been supplied with at least one of Larsen's medications would have warned against taking it and drinking alcohol, although the bottles themselves had no warning label.
The trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, said that the incidents of intoxication that Larsen's daughter described put Larsen on notice that she had a problem with alcohol, and that "this was not a three-wine evening for you that got you to a point 184." After watching a videotape of the stop and arrest, the court was not convinced Larsen was in a sleep state, but that she intended to go for a drive, and thus found her guilty of driving under the influence .
1. Larsen argues on appeal that overwhelming evidence showed she had no intent to drive. "DUI is a crime of general, not specific, intent." (Citation omitted.) Prine v. State, 237 Ga. App. 679, 680 (2) (a) (515 SE2d 425) (1999). The State does not have to
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|