Opinion ID: 2185961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: After all evidence had been presented, the trial court denied Dominguez' motion for judgment of acquittal. Iowa R.Crim.P. 18(8). In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon insufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State, to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Radeke, 444 N.W.2d 476, 477 (Iowa 1989). Dominguez does not claim his passenger's death was not caused by his unintentional acts. He argues that there was insufficient evidence that he operated the motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or while having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. He urges that the testimony from numerous witnesses at the accident scene, including investigating officers, that he did not appear intoxicated, outweighs the other evidence in the case. We find, however, there was sufficient evidence to prove Dominguez was operating his pickup while under the influence of alcohol. The jury was instructed: A person is under the influence when, by drinking liquor and/or beer, one or more of the following is true: 1. His reason or mental ability has been affected. 2. His judgment is impaired. 3. His emotions are visibly excited. 4. He has, to any extent, lost control of bodily actions or motions. See Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 2500.5. There was considerable evidence to support a finding that, immediately before the accident, Dominguez was speeding, he made an illegal and dangerous pass, and that he lost control of his pickup. The court further instructed: The State does not need to prove how the defendant was driving. However, you may consider his manner of driving in deciding if he was under the influence of alcohol. See Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 2500.8. The evidence as to Dominguez' driving could be used to prove that he was under the influence of alcohol. Dominguez admitted to consuming five or six beers during the course of the afternoon. There was also testimony from police officer Richard Stehly that Dominguez told him after the breath test had been administered, that he had consumed five or six beers in the hour immediately preceding the accident. In addition, there was evidence as to the breath test result. Witnesses testified as to the reliability and accuracy of the intoxilyzer and the test result. Expert testimony was received as to the rate of metabolism of alcohol, the rate of absorption in to the system, the effects of alcohol on a person, the symptoms of intoxication at different levels, and the effect of individual tolerance to alcohol. The breath test result obtained more than two hours after a person was operating a motor vehicle may be competent evidence on the question of whether a person was under the influence of alcohol. Iowa Code § 321J.18. We think it clear that there was sufficient substantial evidence from which a jury could conclude that Dominguez was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.