 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Elsberry4/30/2003
ial if a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Schmidt, 588 N.W.2d 416, 418 (Iowa 1998). Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(p); State v. Kirchner, 600 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
Pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.2 the crime of operating while intoxicated can be committed in two ways: (1) by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, or (2) by operating a motor vehicle while having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. Elsberry contends the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to prove either alternative. We disagree.
Deputy Mardesen found defendant's abandoned truck in a ditch. See State v. Dominguez, 482 N.W.2d 390, 392 (Iowa 1992) (stating defendant's manner of driving is relevant evidence to be considered in determining whether he or she was under the influence of alcohol). The driver's side of the windshield had a circular impression of broken glass with traces of blood on it. From experience, Mardesen believed the glass was broken by the impact of the driver's head. Mardesen arrived at defendant's house a mere one-half hour after the accident to find defendant with bloodshot, watery eyes and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. See State v. Pieper, 432 N.W.2d 701, 704 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (finding red and watery eyes and odor of alcoholic beverage were evidence defendant was under the influence of alcohol). Defendant also had an abrasion on his forehead. Elsberry admitted to Mardesen that he drove into the ditch coming home from the beer tent at the Pufferbilly Days in Boone. He also stated that he had only one beer at home after the accident. Elsberry also failed all three of the field sobriety tests administered by Mardesen. See id. (stating an inability to perform field sobriety tests is evidence that subject is under the influence of alcohol).
Defendant admitted to operating the vehicle. He admitted to driving into the ditch after leaving a beer tent. He also admitted to having "too many" sixteen ounce bottles of Miller at the beer tent. Defendant's breath was tested and revealed he had an alcohol concentration of .155. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find substantial evidence supports the court's conclusion that Elsberry operated his pickup truck while under the influence and with an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. Accordingly we affirm the defendant's conviction.
AFFIRMED.
|