State v. Hight3/1/2002
ts, numbers fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen, Hight argues there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of DWI, Third Offense. First, the defense argues that the conflicting testimony by the officers cannot serve as the sole basis for a conviction. Secondly, the defense asserts that there was an insufficient connection between Hight and the prior two convictions discussed above.
Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the proper standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of evidence claim 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. State v. Bellamy, 599 So.2d 326 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1992), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1089 (La. 1992).
The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence or inferred from the circumstances must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La. 1983); State v. Lott, 535 So.2d 963 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1988).
In order to convict an accused of driving while intoxicated, the prosecution need only prove that defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. State v. Courtney, 30,629 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/13/98), 714 So.2d 176; State v. Edwards, 591 So.2d 748 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1991), writ denied, 94-0452 (La. 6/21/96), 675 So.2d 1072; State v. Iles, 96-256 (La. App. 3d Cir. 11/6/96), 684 So.2d 38. Some behavioral manifestations, independent of any scientific test, are sufficient to support a charge of driving while intoxicated. State v Courtney, supra; State v. Neilson, 27,239 (La. App. 2d Cir. 8/23/95), 660 So.2d 130; State v. Pitre, 532 So.2d 424 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1988), writ denied, 538 So.2d 590 (La. 1989). It is not necessary that a conviction of DWI be based upon a blood or breath alcohol test, and the observations of an arresting officer may be sufficient to establish defendant's guilt. Intoxication is an observable condition about which a witness may testify. State v. Allen, supra.
The appellate court does not assess credibility or re-weigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support the requisite factual finding. State v. Gradick, 29,231 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1/22/97), 687 So.2d 1071; State v. Braswell, 605 So.2d 702 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1992).
Although the testimony of Officers Faulkner and Hamilton may have differed regarding the degree to which Hight successfully completed any of the field sobriety tests, their testimony indicated that defendant did not perform the tests well due to his impairment. They both testified regarding the smell of alcohol on the defendant. Moreover, both officers testified that their opinion was that Hight was under the influence of alcohol. Although Hight attempted to attribute his poor performance on the sobriety tests to longstanding physical ailments, the trial court found the officers' testimony to be more credible. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to find Hight guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
Se
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|