Stephens v. State
18 A.3d 168
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Stephens was charged in Frederick County District Court with failure to obey a traffic control device, driving under the influence, DUI per se, and driving while impaired; the court then transferred to circuit court after a jury trial request and Stephens elected a bench trial.
- He was convicted of failure to obey a traffic control device and DUI per se; the other counts merged.
- The conviction arose from a March 12, 2009 incident where Deputy Schlosser observed Stephens’s erratic swerving on Route 26, prompting a traffic stop.
- Deputy Schlosser detected alcohol on Stephens, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and administered field sobriety tests showing multiple clues of intoxication.
- A breath test administered by Deputy Linares yielded a result of .15 grams of alcohol per 210 meters of breath.
- Stephens challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove failure to obey a traffic control device, arguing that lane markings are not traffic control devices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lane markings qualify as traffic control devices | Stephens argues lane markings are not traffic control devices under TA §11-167. | State contends lane markings are markings that regulate traffic and thus traffic control devices under TA §11-167. | Lane markings are traffic control devices; conviction sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Downes v. Downes, 388 Md. 561 (Md. 2005) (statutory interpretation geared to legislative intent and language)
- Deville v. State, 383 Md. 217 (Md. 2004) (ordinary understanding informs interpretation of terminology)
- Hackley v. State, 161 Md. App. 1 (Md. 2005) (dictionary-based approach to determining plain meaning)
- Ray v. State, 410 Md. 384 (Md. 2009) (analyze statutory scheme to harmonize provisions)
- Chen v. State, 370 Md. 99 (Md. 2002) (interplay of related statutes in pari materia; later act may repeal earlier if irreconcilable)
- Ghajari v. State, 346 Md. 101 (Md. 1997) (interpretation of conflicting statutes when dealing with related offenses)
- Polk v. State, 183 Md. App. 299 (Md. 2008) (appellate review of legal sufficiency of evidence; de novo on law)
- Burlas v. State, 185 Md. App. 559 (Md. 2009) (legal sufficiency review; de novo standard)
- Evans v. State, 396 Md. 256 (Md. 2007) (prosecutorial discretion in charging and prosecuting cases)