Cathy Brockhaus Paradoski v. State
2015 WL 5449729, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7348, 477 S.W.3d 342 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Circumstantial evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction for driving while intoxicated by a controlled substance when the evidence shows the defendant was impaired, had prescription drugs in their system, and an expert testifies those drugs could cause such impairment, even if the defendant presents an alternative medical explanation.
Facts:
- A witness observed Cathy Paradoski driving erratically and called 911.
- Shortly thereafter, Paradoski rear-ended another vehicle.
- Witnesses at the scene, including a police officer, observed that Paradoski had slurred speech, was slow to respond to questions, and could not explain what happened.
- Paradoski conceded that her mental and physical faculties were impaired at the time of the incident.
- A blood draw taken at a hospital revealed the presence of two prescription medications, hydrocodone and carisoprodol, in Paradoski's system.
- Paradoski claimed her impairment was caused by a transient ischemic attack (TIA), a type of mini-stroke, not by the medication.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathy Paradoski was charged by information in a trial court with the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated.
- Paradoski entered a plea of 'not guilty.'
- A jury found Paradoski guilty of the offense.
- The trial court sentenced Paradoski to 180 days’ confinement and eighteen months of community supervision.
- Paradoski (appellant) appealed her conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does legally sufficient evidence support a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) when the defendant concedes impairment but attributes it to a medical condition rather than the prescription drugs found in her system?
Opinions:
Majority - Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice
Yes. Legally sufficient evidence supports the conviction for driving while intoxicated. To obtain a DWI conviction, the State must prove that the defendant lost her faculties by reason of introducing a substance into her body, but it is not required to prove the specific substance. The jury had sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude Paradoski was impaired due to the prescription drugs. This included the blood test results, testimony from both the State's and the defense's toxicologists that the levels of medication found could cause impairment, and the observations of Paradoski's behavior. The jury, as the sole judge of credibility, was entitled to disbelieve the defense's theory that a TIA caused the impairment, especially given a nurse's testimony that Paradoski's symptoms were inconsistent with a TIA. Even if the jury believed Paradoski suffered a TIA, it could have reasonably concluded she was impaired by both the medical event and the drugs, which would still support the conviction.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts give to a jury's resolution of conflicting evidence. It establishes that a DWI-drug conviction can be sustained on a strong circumstantial case without direct proof of when the drugs were taken or a definitive opinion from a toxicologist that the specific drug levels did cause the impairment. The presence of drugs combined with expert testimony that they could cause the observed impairment is sufficient. This holding makes it more difficult for defendants to defeat a DWI charge by simply offering an alternative medical explanation for their impaired state, as the jury is free to weigh the competing theories and make a credibility determination.
