 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brunson v. State12/23/2002
ated that there was "no doubt in mind that [appellant] was intoxicated."
Appellant contends that this evidence is insufficient to show that he was intoxicated. We do not agree. Although no valid breathalyzer results were obtained, a DWI conviction is not dependent upon evidence of blood-alcohol content in view of sufficient other evidence of intoxication. Mace v. State, 328 Ark. 536, 944 S.W.2d 830 (1997). Nor was the police officer's failure to perform field-sobriety tests fatal. Although such tests may have provided additional evidence of appellant's coordination or lack thereof, this would merely have been cumulative to the police officer's testimony regarding appellant's unsteadiness and lack of coordination. Given this evidence, the evidence of the officer's familiarity with appellant, and the officer's definite opinion that appellant was intoxicated, we hold that there was substantial evidence to show that appellant was intoxicated. See Johnson v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
Hart and Bird, JJ., agree.
|