Timing is Everything: Palmer v. State, Reported Opinion by the ACM

By Isabelle Raquin

On August 28, 2025, the Appellate Court of Maryland published Marconi Palmer, Jr. v. State (No. 1728, September Term, 2023, reported opinion by Beachley), addressing the sufficiency of the evidence in a DUI case. Specifically, the ACM held, as a matter of first impression, that a temporal connection is needed between a defendant’s last operation of a vehicle and his observed intoxication to support a conviction for driving under the influence or impaired by alcohol. Because there was insufficient evidence to prove that Palmer was under the influence at the time of the accident, the ACM reversed the convictions for DUI and DWI. The dissent (Judge Zic) disagrees with the majority’s reliance on the “temporal connection” which comes from out-of-state case law and would have affirmed the convictions because the circumstantial inferences were sufficient for a jury to find that Palmer drove under the influence of alcohol. Stay tuned, this case may go up.

The Facts. At approximately 11:30 p.m., police arrived at the scene of a single-vehicle accident. The vehicle had gone off the road into a wet, grassy ditch, and it struck a speed limit sign that was then knocked out of the ground. There were five to six people also present at the scene, with a second vehicle parked nearby. Palmer was one of the individuals at the scene. His eyes were bloodshot, his breath smelled of alcohol, and his speech was slurred. Palmer’s feet and sandals were wet and covered in grass. He had the sole key to the vehicle in his possession, and the hood of his vehicle was still warm. A small bottle of Fireball whiskey was found on the ground outside of the vehicle. However, no one saw the bottle fall or otherwise come out of the vehicle. The officers did not know when the accident exactly occurred or how long Palmer had been at the scene before officers arrived.

Affirming in part, reversing in part. Affirming in part, the ACM concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support an inference that Palmer had been driving the vehicle and the convictions for negligent driving and failure to obey designated lane directions. The Court found that his shoes being wet and covered in grass indicated that he was walking in the area where the vehicle was stopped, along with a card in the vehicle with his name on it, and him being in possession of the only key to the vehicle, were sufficient evidence for the negligent driving charges. However, the ACM reversed the convictions for driving under the influence and driving impaired, because the evidence did not show when the single-vehicle accident occurred or whether Palmer drank alcohol after the accident but before police arrived on scene. The warmth of the hood of the vehicle, the empty Fireball bottle next to the vehicle, the nature of the single-vehicle crash, and the struck down road sign were insufficient for such convictions, absent a temporal connection between the intoxication and the driving.

Holding. To prove the critical element of the crime of DUI or DWI, the State needed to offer specific evidence that the defendant was under the influence or impaired at the time the defendant was driving. The mere fact that appellant was found under the influence of alcohol at the scene of a single-vehicle accident does not support a finding that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he drove the vehicle.

Two lines of cases. Two lines of cases supported the parties’ contention. The Missouri cases supported Palmer’s position about the need for a temporal connection between a defendant’s observed intoxication and his last operation of a motor vehicle. The Texas cases supported the State’s position regarding circumstantial inferences to be drawn from a defendant’s intoxication at the scene.

Reasoning. The ACM sided with the Missouri cases. It adhered to the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Maryland in Thomas v. State, 277 Md. 314 (1976). In Thomas, theSCM held that being intoxicated in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked on the side of the road was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant had driven the vehicle while intoxicated. Indeed, in Thomas, there was no evidence indicating how long the vehicle had been parked on the roadside, whether the defendant— who was found alone— had driven to the location or if he had been dropped off by another individual, or whether the vehicle was operable. The Thomas Court relied upon State v. Sanford, 108 A.2d 516 (Vt. 1954). In Sanford, the Supreme Court of Vermont concluded that evidence of the defendant, asleep and intoxicated in the front seat of a vehicle which had run off the road, was not sufficient to support a conviction of driving under the influence due to the absence of evidence regarding when the defendant drove off of the road or whether he had been drinking before the off-roading.

Is the warmth of the hood enough? The only evidence offered to indicate how recently the vehicle had been driven was the warmth of the hood felt by officers at the scene. Citing Gore v. State, 74 Md. App. 143 (1988), the ACM stated that the warmth of the hood could sufficiently support a finding that the defendant was driving the vehicle recently, if presented along with other circumstantial evidence. In Gore, the warmth of the hood was used with additional facts such as the key in the ignition in the “on” position, the battery light of the car being on, the transmission being in drive, and the defendant being found seated behind the steering wheel.

The Dissent. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Zic criticized the majority’s reliance on Sanford due to the “significant difference in evidentiary standards under Vermont and Maryland law.” Further, Judge Zic emphasized that the question to resolve is whether the State had established a reasonable likelihood that the appellant was driving under the influence of alcohol. Judge Zic would have held, based on the facts of this case, “that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to conclude that Mr. Palmer was under the influence of alcohol while driving.”