Traffic/DUI

Defendant was driving a semi-tractor trailer when he collided with several emergency vehicles responding to an earlier accident, and collision caused death of a volunteer firefighter. Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of reckless homicide. State failed to prove Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and State failed to present any evidence showing that Defendant was in conscious disregard of anything.State was required to, but failed to prove that defendant consciously disregarded the danger posed by the icy road conditions and, in so doing, engaged in conduct that represented a gross deviation from established norms society expects reasonable persons to undertake given those circumstances.(HOLDER WHITE and POPE, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 5/15/17.) Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of drugs or combination of drugs and improper lane usage. Court properly granted Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS). Officer admitted that he never observed Defendant and only knew Defendant's symptoms (seating, pinpoint pupils, fast heart rate) by speaking to paramedics, and that he had no experience in DUI of drugs. Officer lacked probable cause to believe that Defendant was under the influence of drugs; and Defendant told officer that he was a diabetic.(HOLDRIDGE, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

Defendant was charged with DUI. Court properly granted Defendant's motion to suppress, and properly granted Petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS). Officer testified that he could not tell how much Defendant, who had been in a single motorcycle accident, drank based on "slight odor" of alcoholic beverage on Defendant's breath; and testified that Defendant seemed honest to him before admitting that he had 1 drink. As officer was the only witness to testify at suppression hearing and court state that it questioned his credibility on issue of impairment, court properly granted motion to suppress. State's appeal did not require court to stay rescission hearing as DUI prosecution and SSS hearing are separate proceedings. Court properly relied on evidence from suppression hearing in deciding petition to rescind. (CARTER and McDADE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of aggravated DUI. Defendant hit another vehicle, resulting in serious injury to 2 people. Court erred in finding that Defendant was barred, as a matter of law, from raising as an affirmative defense that accident was caused solely and exclusively by a sudden unforeseeable medical condition (low blood pressure) that rendered her incapable of controlling her car.  However, Defendant failed to make an adequate offer of proof to support this affirmative defense, as Defendant's physician could not testify that Defendant's low blood pressure was the cause of her falling asleep or losing consciousness prior to accident, but only that it was a possibility. (FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, and BURKE, concurring; GARMAN and KARMEIER, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated DUI. Court allowed jury, during deliberations and in courtroom, to view video of Defendant's traffic stop, in presence of a substitute, prosecutor, Defendant and his counsel, and bailiff. Record does not show any prejudice to Defendant. Even if it was error, it does not rise to level of plain error, as evidence was not closely balanced, and did not affect fairness of trial and did not challenge integrity of judicial process. (O'BRIEN, specially concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

Court properly denied Defendant's petition to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS) after being charged with DUI. State committed a discovery violation as it did not turn over a DVD of Defendant's traffic stop, because DVD was accidently destroyed after stop. Court did not abuse its discretion in considering available options for sanctions and determining that imputing that Defendant had met his burden of proof as to a prima facie case for rescission was appropriate sanction, rather than barring officer's testimony as to stop. (CARTER, concurring; SCHMIDT, specially concurring.)

Court erred in granting Defendant's motion to quash his arrest for DUI, after city police officer, acting within his jurisdiction, after an off-duty police officer from another city placed him in custody for improper lane usage. An off-duty police officer's use of a radar gun outside of his jurisdiction, before personally witnessing a driver commit other traffic offenses unrelated to excessive speed, will not taint subsequently developed probable cause to conduct arrest by officer acting in his civilian capacity. (HOLDRIDGE and SCHMIDT, concurring.)