Paradoski v. State

Facts

The defendant left her friend’s house between 11:30 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. Her friend’s husband testified that the defendant was “fine” when she left, and he did not see her  take any pills.

Shortly after, a witness called 911 after he saw the defendant driving erratically. She was serving in and our of lanes. She then rear-ended another vehicle. Witnesses reported that the defendant slurred her speech and was slow to respond to questions. The defendant could not adequately explain where she was or what happened. The defendant concedes that her mental and physical faculties were impaired, but argues that it was due to her having a stroke while driving.

An officer determined that she was intoxicated by a narcotic. She consented to a blood draw, and her blood showed the presence of hydrocodone, carisoprodol, and meprobamate. The defendant’s physician had prescribed these drugs, however, she was inconsistent in filling the prescriptions. This inconsistency could have caused the defendant to not develop a tolerance for the drugs. A toxicologist testified that the level of the drugs in her system could have caused her to lose her mental and physical faculties.

The nurse at the hospital testified that she believed the defendant was intoxicated by reason of drugs and/or alcohol and that the defendant’s behavior was consistent with someone taking hydrocodone and carisoprodol. The nurse testified that she did not believe another medical condition was the cause of the defendant’s intoxication, and that she had worked with patients who suffered from a stroke and they are not generally alert and oriented.

She was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI). She appealed, asserting that the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction.