Maryland Appellate Court Reverses DUI Convictions Over Lack of Timing Evidence

Maryland Appellate Court Reverses DUI Convictions Where Timing of Alcohol Use Was Unclear

Palmer v. State
Opinion Date: August 28, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Maryland
Areas of Law: Criminal Law, DUI/DWI, Traffic Offenses

In Palmer v. State, the Appellate Court of Maryland addressed a critical issue in DUI and DWI prosecutions: the State’s burden to prove that alcohol consumption occurred before driving. While the Court upheld some traffic convictions, it reversed DUI‑related convictions due to insufficient evidence regarding when the defendant consumed alcohol.

This case highlights how circumstantial evidence can support some charges—but not others—and reinforces important protections for individuals accused of impaired driving.

Background: Single‑Vehicle Accident Late at Night

Police responded to a single‑vehicle accident at approximately 11:30 p.m. The vehicle had left the roadway, entered a wet, grassy ditch, and struck a speed‑limit sign. A second vehicle was parked nearby, and five to six people were present at the scene when officers arrived.

Officers approached Marconi Palmer, Jr. and observed:

The odor of alcohol on his breath
Bloodshot eyes
Slow and lethargic speech
Wet shoes covered in grass

Mr. Palmer told officers that a tow truck was on the way and stated, “I’m going to pump up my tire and then we can leave.”

Additional observations included:

The vehicle’s hood was warm
A small bottle of whiskey was found near the vehicle
A card bearing Mr. Palmer’s name was located inside the vehicle
The key to the vehicle was found in Mr. Palmer’s pocket

Mr. Palmer was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), driving while impaired (DWI), reckless driving, negligent driving, failure to obey lane directions, and other traffic offenses.

Trial Evidence and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

At trial, Mr. Palmer’s girlfriend testified that:

She last saw him at 8:00 p.m., and he had not been drinking at that time
She owned the vehicle involved in the accident
There was only one key to the vehicle

Notably, no police officer could determine when the accident occurred or how long Mr. Palmer had been at the scene before police arrived.

Mr. Palmer moved for judgment of acquittal on all charges based on insufficient evidence. The trial court granted acquittal on some counts but denied the motion on others, including DUI‑related charges.

Appellate Court Decision: Mixed Outcome

Evidence Supported an Inference That Mr. Palmer Was Driving

The Appellate Court held that there was sufficient evidence to infer that Mr. Palmer had been driving the vehicle. The Court relied on:

His wet, grass‑covered shoes
The presence of his personal card inside the vehicle
His statements about repairing the vehicle and leaving
His possession of the only key to the vehicle

The Court also concluded that the nature of the accident supported convictions for negligent driving and failure to obey designated lane directions.

DUI and DWI Convictions Reversed

However, the Court reversed the convictions for driving under the influence and driving while impaired by alcohol.

The key problem:
There was no evidence establishing when Mr. Palmer consumed alcohol.

Because the State could not prove whether alcohol was consumed before or after driving, the evidence was insufficient to support DUI or DWI convictions. The presence of alcohol alone was not enough.

Why This Case Matters in DUI Defense

This decision underscores an important legal principle:

The State must prove not only intoxication—but that intoxication existed at the time of driving.

Even strong circumstantial evidence of drinking may be insufficient if the timeline is unclear. For DUI cases, timing matters.

Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police

If you are stopped or questioned by police following an accident:

Anything you say can and will be used against you
You have the right to remain silent
You are generally required only to provide identification and insurance information

You are not required to explain what happened or answer questions about alcohol use.

Charged With DUI or DWI? We Can Help.

DUI and DWI charges are serious, complex, and highly fact‑specific. Small details—such as the timing of alcohol consumption—can make or break a case.

At Gritz, Hanifin & Shih, LLC, we work every day to protect our clients’ constitutional rights and challenge weak or unsupported charges.

Call 301‑214‑9200 today for a free consultation
We will explain your rights and fight for your right to a fair trial.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Can I be convicted of DUI without proof of when I drank alcohol?

No. As Palmer v. State makes clear, the State must prove that alcohol consumption occurred before or while driving, not afterward.

Is circumstantial evidence enough to prove someone was driving?

Yes. Factors like possession of keys, statements to police, and physical evidence can support an inference that a person was driving.

Why were the DUI and DWI charges reversed in this case?

Because there was no evidence establishing when the accident occurred or whether Mr. Palmer had access to alcohol after driving.

Do I have to answer police questions after an accident?

No. You have the right to remain silent beyond providing basic identification and insurance information.

Can DUI charges be challenged even if alcohol is found at the scene?

Yes. The presence of alcohol alone does not prove impairment at the time of driving.

Should I contact an attorney if I’m charged with DUI or DWI?

Absolutely. Early legal representation is critical in protecting your rights and building a strong defense.