 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Roberson11/30/1998
Appeal from the District Court for Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
[ ] Robbie D. Roberson appealed from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict of guilty for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and Roberson's trial counsel was not ineffective on the face of the record of the trial court proceedings. We therefore affirm.
[ ] In the early morning hours of June 29, 1997, Roberson was driving a pickup at a high rate of speed east on Interstate 94 between Bismarck and Mandan when he failed to negotiate the McKenzie Drive exit and rolled the pickup over three or four times. Passersby called emergency services and went to assist Roberson. The pickup was lying on its side, and two people helped Roberson get out of it. Roberson began "staggering" across a field into a wooded area near the accident scene. When law enforcement officers arrived, they searched and found Roberson lying in the weeds. Roberson was uncooperative, belligerent, and swore at them. The officers smelled a strong odor of alcohol on Roberson's breath, his speech was slurred, and he had bloodshot and watery eyes.
[ ] Roberson was taken by ambulance to a hospital where he continued to be uncooperative with medical personnel and the officers. When asked if he would submit to a chemical test to check for blood alcohol content, Roberson swore at the officer. Roberson was not given a chemical test. After being treated at the hospital for about one hour, Roberson was released into the custody of his mother.
[ ] Roberson was charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. A jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge, and Roberson, represented by an attorney different than his trial attorney, appealed.
[ ] Roberson asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty. We disagree.
[ ] Appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence for a jury verdict is very limited. State v. Esparza, 1998 ND 13, 17, 575 N.W.2d 203. The reviewing court looks only to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. State v. Kunkel, 548 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 1996). We do not reweigh conflicting evidence or the credibility of witnesses. City of Fargo v. Brennan, 543 N.W.2d 240, 243 (N.D. 1996). We will not reverse a criminal conviction unless, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Gonderman, 531 N.W.2d 11, 16 (N.D. 1995). The defendant has the burden of showing the evidence establishes no reasonable inference of guilt. State v. Zurmiller, 544 N.W.2d 139, 141 (N.D. 1996).
[ ] The jury's verdict is supported by the testimony of law enforcement officers who said they observed Roberson in an intoxicated state and by the testimony of a passing motorist who said he saw Roberson driving erratically and "staggering" after the accident. Roberson testified he had not consumed any alcohol, the accident was caused by mechanical problems with the pickup, and his disoriented behavior was attributable to a head injury. This testimony was obviously rejected by the jury. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict.
[ ] Roberson asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel b
Page 1 2 3 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|