A Supreme Court decision Thursday reversed the 2013 driving while intoxicated conviction of a Springdale man who was caught "sleep driving" after taking a prescribed sleeping pill.
In a 5-2 decision, Arkansas Justice Courtney Goodson found that drivers guilty of a DWI must have been in a "culpable mental state" when they made their decision to get behind the wheel.
Chief Justice Jim Hannah and Justice Paul Danielson dissented, arguing that lawmakers who added the offense to the state's criminal code in 1983 clearly intended the offense to be prosecuted regardless of the defendant's "mens rea," a legal term meaning "intent."
The ruling reverses a decision by Washington County Circuit Judge William Storey and remanded the case back to his court.
On Aug. 24, 2013, a Springdale police officer got a call about a black Chevrolet Cobalt "swerving all over" the road and driving "recklessly" along Interstate 540.
The officer caught up with the vehicle and pulled it over. The driver, Robert Leeka of Springdale, was "extremely confused and very lethargic," but the officer found no signs of intoxicants.
Police reports said Leeka admitted to taking an allergy pill and some prescription medication.
When the officer had Leeka step out of the car, the man "lost his balance and fell against the car," and the officer put him under arrest for a suspected DWI.
Subsequent blood tests showed no signs of alcohol or other intoxicants in the man's system. The only thing in his blood was a trace amount of Zolpidem, a chemical commonly associated with sleep-aid Ambien, which has known side effects that cause "sleep driving," according to court records.
Leeka lost in lower court and was sentenced to one day in jail and about $700 in court costs related to the DWI as well as a citation for running a red light.
Leeka immediately appealed, arguing that the DWI statute requires an offender to knowingly drive while intoxicated.
The state attorneys argued that the Arkansas Legislature wanted anyone driving while intoxicated to be guilty of the offense -- even if the driver hadn't intended to be impaired.
The court sided with Leeka.
A pair of prominent Little Rock defense attorneys said they thought the court came to the right ruling, but they doubted the finding would result in a significant new precedent for DWI prosecutions.
But attorney Jeff Rosenzweig said DWIs no longer will be treated as "strict scrutiny" crimes. Prosecutors will have to show that the person drove while impaired "purposely, knowingly or recklessly," he said.
"Recklessly" is the standard "all the DWI [cases] would rise or fall on," he said.
"It helps [defense attorneys] a little, certainly," Rosenzweig said. "But I don't look at it as opening the flood gates."
John Collins, who specializes in DWI cases, agreed.
"A lot of people will try to use [this ruling] as a defense [from DWI prosecution], but the reality of it is it's not likely to work," he said.
Metro on 05/01/2015