State of Iowa v. Jeffrey Alan Schories

I respectfully dissent because I conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain Scho-ries’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(l)(c) (2009), notwithstanding his defense that he was prescribed methadone by Dr. Daniel Baldi. The majority usurps the role of the jury by dissecting the State’s rebuttal of the prescription-drug defense into separate, distinct theories and finding the evidence insufficient for each unique theory viewed in isolation. That is not how the case was tried and submitted to…