In 2020 police observed Daniel O’Quinn driving his car on the highway with two wheels in the breakdown lane.
An officer turned on his blue lights and siren but Daniel did not pull over. Instead he drove his car, without speeding, through multiple towns until he reached his driveway. He then ran into his house and came back outside chugging a “decent size bottle of alcohol.”
After police arrested him, Daniel told officers that he had been poisoned by consuming anti-freeze and the only “antidote” was alcohol. His “poisoning” was in fact nothing more than a rash from poison ivy.
Daniel was charged with several crimes, including operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) and failing to stop for police.
He took his case to trial and beat the OUI charge. However, the jury convicted him of failing to stop for the police–despite his claims of being poisoned and rushing for the antidote.
Daniel appealed the conviction and the Appeals Court affirmed the jury’s decision.
According to the justices,
When analyzing whether the record evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court is not required to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Based on such a low standard, the Appeals Court concluded that the conviction should not be reversed and that
the jury was entitled to reject the defendant’s “antidote” excuse as a valid reason for the defendant’s refusal to stop when signaled to do so by a police officer in a marked cruiser.
The full text of the opinion is attached below.