Palmer v. State
https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/1728s23.pdf
Police arrived at the scene of a single-vehicle accident at approximately 11:30 p.m. The vehicle had run off the road into a wet, grassy ditch and hit a speed limit sign. A second vehicle was parked nearby, and five to six people were present at the scene when officers arrived. Appellant, Marconi Palmer, Jr., was approached by officers, who noticed that his breath smelled of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot, and his speech was “slow and lethargic.” The officers also noticed that his shoes were wet and covered in grass. He told the officers that a tow truck was on the way, and he intended to “pump up my tire and then we can leave.” The hood of the vehicle was warm, a small bottle of whiskey was found on the ground near the vehicle during an inventory search, and a card bearing Mr. Palmer’s name was found inside the vehicle. He was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, reckless driving, negligent driving, failure to obey designated lane directions, and various other traffic offenses. The key to the vehicle was found in his pocket. At trial, Mr. Palmer’s girlfriend testified that she last saw appellant at 8:00 on the evening of the accident, and he had not been drinking at that time. She additionally testified that she owned the vehicle involved in the accident, and there was only one key to the vehicle. No police officer could opine when the accident occurred or how long appellant had been at the scene before the police arrived.
Mr. Palmer moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts, based on evidentiary insufficiency. The trial court granted judgment of acquittal as to some charges but denied the motion as to the charges relevant to the appeal.
The Appellate Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support an inference that appellant had been driving the vehicle. The evidence supporting this inference included: appellant’s shoes being wet and covered in grass, indicating he was walking in the area where the vehicle stopped; the card bearing his name inside the vehicle; his statements to police concerning the tow truck and “pump[ing] up my tire”; and his being in possession of the only key to the vehicle, which was owned by his girlfriend. Additionally, the Court concluded that the nature of the accident supported the convictions for negligent driving and failure to obey designated lane directions.
However, the Court held that the evidence did not support a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or while impaired by alcohol due to the lack of evidence indicating when the accident occurred and whether appellant had access to alcohol between that time and when police arrived.
It is important to note that if you are confronted by the police, any information that you give will be used against you if they are going to try to prosecute you for DUI / DWI. You have the right not to speak with he police at the scene or to provide them information other than your identification and insurance information.
Here at Gritz, Hanifin, & Shih, LLC we work hard every day to protect your constitutional rights. It is important when you are hiring an attorney that you understand your rights and how they will affect your case. A charge of Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a complicated and serious occurrence and should be handled as such. Call today at 301-214-9200 to discuss your rights and your right to a fair trial.