DUI Defendant’s Testimony Lacks Credibility, Convicted of Operating Under Influence of Liquor
On October 23, 2007, in the case People v. Middler, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the DUI defendant’s conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor (OUIL) under M.C.L. 257.625(1) – her third offense – and of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, under M.C.L 257.904(3)(a). The DUI defendant was sentenced to 90 days in jail with 44 days of credit, and 24 months’ probation.
On appeal, the DUI defendant argued that her convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of appeals disagreed. The court’s analysis first began with a review of the elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a DUI defendant of operating under the influence of liquor: “(1) that defendant was operating a motor vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public; (2) that while so driving he was under the influence of alcohol; and (3) that as a result of the drinking, defendant was substantially deprived of normal control or clarity of mind.”
First, the court noted that the DUI defendant and the prosecutor both stipulated to the fact that she was found to have an alcohol content of 0.16 grams per 210 liters of breath, which was twice the legal limit of .08. Consequently, the issue became a question of how the DUI defendant arrived at the home of her former boyfriend. If there was sufficient evidence to show that she drove herself there (meaning operating a vehicle on a public highway), she would be guilty of OUIL, whereas, on the other hand, if there was not sufficient evidence, then the DUI defendant could be found guilty.
The court explained that under the Michigan Vehicle Code, M.C.L. 257.35a, operate means “being in actual physical control of a vehicle regardless of whether or not the person is licensed under this act as an operator or chauffeur.” According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the DUI defendant operated a vehicle while under the influence of liquor:
“At trial, Officers Wakerly and Will both testified that defendant said she ‘took the back roads’ to get to Slocum’s on the night in question. Defendant never said or implied that someone else had driven her to Slocum’s, and there was no evidence indicating that anyone else had been present at the scene that night. Although defendant’s daughter, Brandi, testified that she drove defendant to Slocum’s residence and was then picked up by her then boyfriend in a separate vehicle, Officer Wakerly testified that the only tire tracks seen in the snow that night belonged to defendant’s truck, and there was only one set of foot prints seen in the snow, which also presumably belonged to defendant. Similarly, Officer Will testified that the only tire tracks she observed belonged to defendant’s truck and Officer Wakerly’s vehicle. Additionally, Brandi contradicted herself during the course of her testimony, such as when she initially stated that she collided with Slocum’s vehicle fairly hard upon arriving at the residence and then later said she did not really hit the vehicle very hard. The testimony of Officers Wakerly and Will, along with the appearance of the scene of the crime, cast doubt on the credibility of Brandi’s testimony.”
The court ruled that a rational jury could have found the DUI defendant’s testimony to not be credible based on the inconsistencies described above. As a result, the court found sufficient evidence to support the DUI defendant’s conviction of OUIL.
Click here to read the entire opinion.
The GL Law Group, PLC provides free information on Michigan DUI law and guide to choosing a good Michigan DUI attorney. If you have recently been arrested for a DUI, it’s important to contact a good DUI lawyer soon. A guilty DUI conviction can ruin your life. Contact us to set up a free DUI case review.
