 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Roling2/7/2001
Defendant-Appellant, Lynn Anthony Roling, appeals from his conviction for operating while intoxicated and failure to yield in violation of Iowa Code sections 321J.2(1)(a)(b) and 321.298. Defendant contends the district court erred in: (1) submitting to the jury the question of actual intoxication; (2) allowing the State to introduce his medical records; (3) forcing him to assert the patient-doctor privilege in open court; (4) refusing to allow him to offer a can of brake fluid into evidence; (5) allowing unqualified expert testimony; (6) denying certain rebuttal testimony. Defendant also asserts prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal. We affirm.
Defendant was charged following a three-vehicle accident where the pickup he was driving crossed the centerline sideswiping a passenger car and forcing it off the road. Defendant next collided nearly head-on with a limousine.
A trooper at the scene noted defendant smelled of an alcoholic beverage, was stumbling around, had poor balance and his eyes were bloodshot and watery. Defendant was not asked to perform field sobriety tests because of concerns for parties injured in the accident.
A deputy sheriff who first had contact with defendant in the emergency room asked defendant if he had been drinking. Defendant said he had six to eight beers before the accident. The deputy smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from defendant's person. The deputy commenced the implied consent procedures under Iowa Code section 321J.6. Defendant consented to having a blood specimen tested. The laboratory analysis of defendant's blood specimen drawn on the night of the accident indicated a .141 level per grams per deciliter.
A jury found the defendant guilty of operating while intoxicated and failure to yield one-half of the roadway. Defendant was tried under alternative theories of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or operating a vehicle while having a blood alcohol count exceeding .10. Defendant correctly asserts that if the evidence is insufficient to support one alternative it will result in reversal even if the other alternative is clearly established. See State v. Hagnefe, 557 N.W.2d 871, 876 (Iowa 1996). Defendant contends the trial court should not have submitted to the jury the question of his actual intoxication. However, his challenge has no basis as there is substantial evidence to support both theories.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 4; State v. Pace, 602 N.W.2d 764, 768 (Iowa 1999). We uphold a finding of guilt if "substantial evidence" supports the verdict. Pace, 602 N.W.2d at 768. "Substantial evidence" is evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We review the facts in the light most favorable to the State. Id. Furthermore, we consider not only evidence that supports the verdict, but all reasonable inferences that could be derived from the evidence. Id.
*2 The offense of operating while intoxicated consists of two essential elements: (1) the operation of a motor vehicle (2) while under the influence of alcohol. Iowa Code § 321J.2. Defendant contends the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to prove intoxication. Defendant contends the State failed to offer expert witness testimony on the issue of intoxication.
The operation of a motor vehicle by a defendant charged with operating while intoxicated may be established by circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence. State v. Boleyn, 547 N.W.2d 202, 205 (Iowa 1996). Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally probative. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(16).
The State introduced substantial evidence to support a finding defendant was intoxicated. First, the defendant w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|