 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heacock v. State8/17/2005
ment could conclude that the State met its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Heacock concedes that the State's evidence showed that he "drove poorly, ... admitted to driving, ... stated that he did not drink alcohol [after he drove], ... and [that] the DataMaster result 0.118 [percent]." The record supports these concessions.
The State's evidence included witnesses who testified that Heacock drove erratically and admitted he had been drinking before he drove. The evidence also showed that state troopers contacted Heacock approximately fourteen minutes after his erratic driving was reported. When the troopers spoke with Heacock, his eyes were watery, "somewhat bloodshot," and he had "a moderate odor of alcohol on ... his breath and person." A short time later, a DataMaster test showed that Heacock's blood alcohol content was .118 percent. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict, this evidence was adequate to support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that there was no reasonable doubt that Heacock was guilty of driving while under the influence.
Conclusion
Heacock's convictions are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|