Spreeman v. State
2012 WY 88
| Wyo. | 2012Background
- Spreeman challenges a felony DWUI conviction under Wyoming §31-5-288(e) claiming she lacked three prior qualifying convictions.
- Her prior convictions are all Michigan offenses: two for driving while intoxicated and one for driving while visibly impaired.
- She contends the Michigan conviction for visibly impaired driving does not count as a law prohibiting driving while under the influence under Wyoming law.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss; Spreeman entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court (Goody) affirms the denial, holding Michigan's visibly impaired statute qualifies for enhancement under Wyoming law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan 257.625(8) qualifies as an 'other law prohibiting driving while under the influence | Spreeman argues Mich. 257.625(8) is not a 'law prohibiting DWUI' under §81-5-288(e) | State contends Wyoming's enhancement does not require exact or substantial similarity to Wyoming's statute | Michigan видibly impaired conviction qualifies for enhancement |
| Whether Wyoming's text requires similarity between states' laws for EWUI enhancements | Spreeman asserts a similarity requirement should apply | State argues plain language permits use of any qualifying foreign law | Wyoming’s statute does not require similarity; Michigan conviction may be used |
Key Cases Cited
- Goich v. State, 339 P.2d 119 (Wyo.1959) (defines 'under the influence' as depriving normal control of faculties)
- State v. Dobbs, 244 P.2d 280 (Wyo.1952) (early DWUI interpretation guidance)
- Redland v. State, 766 P.2d 1173 (Wyo.1989) (distinguishes levels of intoxication within DWUI constructs)
- Adelizzi v. Stratton, 243 P.3d 563 (Wyo.2010) (omission of words is intentional; cannot read in words not there)
- In re Adoption of Voss, 550 P.2d 481 (Wyo.1976) (avoid reading terms into statute; respect omissions)
- State v. Akins, 795 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (rejected using non-substantially similar foreign DUI statutes for enhancement)
- McNally v. Montana, 50 P.3d 1080 (Mont.2002) (similar-conviction rule for enhancement considerations)
- Oxendine v. Secretary of State, 602 N.W.2d 847 (Mich.App.1999) (substantially corresponding foreign law analysis in license sanctions)
- People v. Calvin, 548 N.W.2d 720 (Mich.App.1996) (defines visible impairment standard in Michigan)