Mills v. District of Columbia, 259 A.3d 750

On July 27–28, 2016 MPD Officers Earhart and Berg stopped Cecelia Mills after observing her make a wide turn onto narrow Holbrook Street, veer into the officers’ lane, drive with one operable headlight, fail to signal on several turns, and execute an abrupt nose-first park near a residence.
Officers described Mills as slurring, giving incoherent or blank responses, having red/glossy/bloodshot eyes, needing assistance to walk, repeatedly saying she needed to urinate, and handing mail instead of a license.
No Standardized Field Sobriety Test was administered because none were available; portions of station-house video were missing. About three hours after arrest Mills was at Providence Hospital; a six-minute body-worn camera (BWC) recording from that visit was deleted because it was not tagged to be preserved.
A magistrate found the officers credible and convicted Mills of reckless driving (D.C. Code §50-2201.04(b)) and DUI (D.C. Code §50-2206.11); the associate judge affirmed and denied sanctions for the lost BWC footage.
Mills appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence for both convictions and (2) that the court abused its discretion by declining to sanction the government for deletion of the hospital BWC footage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — Reckless driving	Mills: evidence did not prove the required mental state or that her driving was reckless	Government: officers’ observations (veering into cruiser, higher rate of speed, one headlight, failure to signal) supported conviction under the statute’s "without due caution" alternative	Affirmed — statute has alternative mental elements; evidence supported conviction under the "without due caution and circumspection" clause
Sufficiency — DUI	Mills: no direct nexus evidence (SFST, breath/blood, odor, drugs in car) so evidence was insufficient	Government: circumstantial evidence and experienced-officer lay opinions about appearance, speech, balance, and erratic driving suffice to prove impairment	Affirmed — accumulated circumstantial evidence supported a finding of being "under the influence"
Sanctions for deleted hospital BWC	Mills: deletion prejudiced defense and warranted sanctions	Government: footage was recorded hours after arrest, unlikely to be critical, deletion not in bad faith; ample other evidence of guilt	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; deletion not shown to be gross negligence or to have produced substantial prejudice

Thomas v. United States, 249 A.3d 802 (D.C. 2021) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
Pelote v. District of Columbia, 21 A.3d 599 (D.C. 2011) (interpretation of §50-2201.04(b) as containing alternative mental elements)
Harris v. District of Columbia, 601 A.2d 21 (D.C. 1991) (circumstantial evidence and officer experience may support DUI)
Taylor v. District of Columbia, 49 A.3d 1259 (D.C. 2012) (definition of "under the influence" as appreciable impairment perceptible to the senses)
Cotton v. United States, 388 A.2d 865 (D.C. 1978) (factors for sanctions: negligence/bad faith, importance of lost evidence, evidence of guilt)
Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296 (D.C. 2018) (analysis of preservation obligations and sanctions for lost evidence)
Murray v. District of Columbia, 358 A.2d 651 (D.C. 1976) (recognizing separate offenses within reckless-driving statute)
Kennedy v. District of Columbia, 601 A.2d 2 (D.C. 1991) (discussion of proof under the "without due caution" clause)