Leeka v. State, 2015 Ark. 183

Robert Leeka was charged with DWI after police observed reckless driving, confusion, unsteadiness, and he was arrested; he submitted to breath and blood tests.
Breath test showed 0.00% alcohol; blood toxicology detected only zolpidem (Ambien).
Medical opinion (stipulated) concluded Leeka experienced complex sleep behavior (sleep-driving) as an adverse reaction to Ambien.
Trial court (circuit court) accepted stipulated facts but ruled the Omnibus DWI Act requires no culpable mental state and convicted and sentenced Leeka.
On appeal Leeka argued Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-203 requires a culpable mental state (purposely, knowingly, or recklessly) for DWI because the DWI statute does not prescribe one; the State argued exceptions applied and relied on the Act’s emergency clause.
The Arkansas Supreme Court held § 5-2-203 applies to the DWI statute (which is in Title 5), reversed the conviction, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Leeka)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the Omnibus DWI Act requires a culpable mental state	§ 5-2-203 imputes a mens rea (purposely, knowingly, or recklessly) because the DWI statute is silent on mental state	DWI is independent of the Criminal Code or the emergency clause shows legislative intent to dispense with mens rea	Court held § 5-2-203 applies; DWI requires a culpable mental state; reversed and remanded
Whether appellant waived the mens rea challenge for appeal	Leeka preserved the statutory-interpretation challenge in stipulated facts and the court ruled on it	State argued Leeka failed to preserve the issue by not moving to dismiss for insufficient evidence	Court held issue was preserved (challenge was one of law, not sufficiency; court ruled sua sponte on stipulated facts)

Hagar v. State, 341 Ark. 633 (court will construe criminal statutes strictly in favor of defendant)
Short v. State, 349 Ark. 492 (give effect to legislative intent; plain-language statutory construction)
T.C. v. State, 2010 Ark. 240 (Rule 33.1 requires specific directed-verdict motions to preserve sufficiency challenges)
Harrell v. City of Conway, 296 Ark. 247 (appeal preserves issues when trial court rules sua sponte)
Quinney v. Pittman, 320 Ark. 177 (statutory construction should not resort to emergency clause when language is unambiguous)
Corn v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2013 Ark. 444 (presume legislature knew existing law when enacting new statutes)
State v. Owens, 370 Ark. 421 (court will not interpret statute to produce an outcome that defies common sense)