## Facts

- Cathy Paradoski crashed her car into another vehicle and was visibly impaired, mentally and physically.
- Police responded and took Paradoski to a local hospital.
- At the hospital, Paradoski consented to a blood test.
- The blood test showed high concentrations of drugs that Paradoski’s physician had prescribed.
- Texas charged Paradoski with misdemeanor driving while intoxicated based on impairment from drugs.
- At trial, both sides presented witnesses who agreed the prescribed drugs had side effects that could impair driving.
- Pharmacy records showed Paradoski had been inconsistent in refilling and taking the prescriptions.
- Witnesses explained that inconsistent ingestion could limit tolerance, making impairing side effects more likely when the drugs were taken again.
- Paradoski testified her impairment was caused by a stroke rather than drug intoxication.
- The attending nurse testified Paradoski showed no indicators of a stroke upon arrival and that her symptoms were consistent with an adverse drug reaction.
- Paradoski’s own witness testified that even if Paradoski had suffered a stroke, it would not have eliminated the drugs’ side effects.
- The jury convicted Paradoski, and she appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Paradoski was intoxicated (i.e., had lost the normal use of her mental or physical faculties) from prescription drugs while driving, despite her claim that a stroke caused her impairment?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the record permitted the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Paradoski’s impairment resulted from the drugs in her system rather than a stroke.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing evidentiary sufficiency in a criminal case, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a rational jury could have found the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The jury may accept or reject testimony, resolve conflicts, and weigh competing explanations for a defendant’s behavior and symptoms.
- Texas DWI may be proven by showing loss of normal mental or physical faculties caused by an intoxicant, including prescription drugs.
- Proof may include blood-test results plus testimony about the drugs’ effects and other circumstances showing impairment.
- Evidence that a defendant used prescribed drugs irregularly may support an inference that the defendant lacked tolerance and was more susceptible to impairing side effects.
- A jury may consider medical testimony that a defendant’s presentation was consistent with an adverse drug reaction and inconsistent with a claimed stroke.

## Conclusion

Paradoski v. State affirmed a misdemeanor DWI conviction where Paradoski was admittedly impaired after a crash, a blood test showed high levels of prescribed drugs, and testimony (including pharmacy-record evidence of inconsistent use) supported the State’s theory that the drugs caused her loss of normal faculties. The jury was entitled to reject Paradoski’s stroke explanation based on the attending nurse’s testimony that she showed no stroke indicators and on defense testimony that a stroke would not have negated the drugs’ impairing side effects.


Paradoski v. State, 477 S.W.3d 342 (2015)