Caseflicks

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland • 1992

Owens v. State

611 A.2d 1043 | 93 Md. App. 162 | 1992 Md. App. LEXIS 230

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case shows that circumstantial proof can establish intoxicated highway driving when the surrounding facts make the innocent alternative unreasonable, even though police find the defendant parked on private property.

Background

At about 11:00 p.m., a state trooper responded to a report of a suspicious vehicle near Sackertown Road in Crisfield. He found Owens asleep in the driver’s seat of a truck parked in a private residential driveway. The engine was running, the lights were on, and Owens held an open beer can between his legs; two empty cans were also in the truck.

Owens appeared heavily intoxicated. He was confused, stumbled from the truck, smelled strongly of alcohol, had flushed skin and red eyes, slurred his speech, and could not correctly recite the alphabet. He refused a blood-alcohol test. Motor-vehicle records also showed that his license carried an alcohol restriction.

The State presented only the trooper’s testimony. Defense counsel established that the truck was on private property, and Owens offered no evidence. After a bench trial, the Circuit Court for Somerset County convicted Owens of driving while intoxicated. Owens appealed, arguing that the evidence did not legally establish that he had driven while intoxicated on a highway, rather than merely sat intoxicated in a truck on a private driveway.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Transportation Article permitted a conviction for driving while intoxicated based on conduct occurring solely on a private driveway.

Holding

No. The statute did not reach intoxicated driving confined to a private driveway, but the State’s theory was that Owens had driven on a public highway before stopping in the driveway.

Reasoning

Owens correctly observed that the relevant transportation provisions apply to driving on highways and do not criminalize merely driving while intoxicated back and forth on a private driveway. His location when found therefore could not, by itself, supply the statutory highway element.

The State, however, did not need to prove that Owens was intoxicated while moving on the driveway. It could instead prove circumstantially that he had arrived there by driving intoxicated on a public highway. The legal question thus became whether the surrounding facts supported that inference beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue #2

Whether the circumstantial evidence was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Owens had driven while intoxicated on a public highway before the trooper found him.

Holding

Yes. The totality of the circumstances made the innocent explanation—that Owens had only begun preparing to drive—less reasonable and allowed the factfinder rationally to infer that he had recently driven intoxicated on a highway.

Reasoning

The truck’s running engine, illuminated lights, and Owens’s position behind the wheel gave rise to two initially plausible inferences: he had just arrived from elsewhere, or he had started the vehicle and was about to leave. The first inference would support guilt because arrival at the private driveway would ordinarily have required highway travel; the second would not, because police intervened before any prohibited highway driving occurred.

Where proof is wholly circumstantial, Maryland law requires the circumstances to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The State did not have to eliminate every far-fetched or speculative possibility, but it had to provide more than an even choice between an inference of guilt and an inference of innocence. The court therefore looked for facts that broke the initial tie between the two explanations.

The beer cans and Owens’s unconsciousness strongly suggested that his drinking in the vehicle was already at a late, rather than an early, stage. It was not a reasonable innocent hypothesis that he had just entered the truck, turned on the engine and lights, consumed enough alcohol to pass out, and done all of this before ever putting the vehicle in gear. Those facts made it more likely that driving and drinking had already been underway.

The report of a suspicious vehicle also supported the inference that Owens had been traveling before the trooper arrived. Even though the record did not reveal the precise content of the complaint, a call reporting a suspicious vehicle reasonably suggested more than a familiar resident sitting harmlessly in a familiar vehicle in his own driveway. That circumstance further weakened the hypothesis that Owens had simply been preparing to leave.

The court acknowledged evidentiary gaps. Owens’s purported statement that he had driven the resident home was excluded, and the record did not establish whether the driveway belonged to Owens or another person. But the admissible evidence, viewed as a whole, made the innocent account strained and less likely. Under Jackson v. Virginia, a rational factfinder could therefore infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Owens had driven while intoxicated on a highway before coming to rest in the driveway.