Opinion ID: 1421920
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drunken Person.

Text: Under AS 04.21.080(b)(7) the term drunken person is defined as: a person whose physical or mental conduct is substantially impaired as a result of the introduction of an alcoholic beverage into his body and who exhibits those plain and easily observed or discovered outward manifestations of behavior commonly known to be produced by the overconsumption of alcoholic beverages[.] In arguing that the superior court erred by denying the J.N.O.V. motion as to whether Pears was a drunken person when he was served at Tommy's, Kavorkian relies upon six witnesses who testified that they thought that Pears was very intoxicated that evening. Twelve witnesses for Tommy's, however, testified that they did not think Pears was drunk. In light of the applicable standard of review, under which this court is not to weigh conflicting evidence or to judge the credibility of witnesses, Grimes v. Haslett, 641 P.2d at 819, we conclude that reasonable jurors might well have disagreed about whether Pears was a drunken person within the meaning of the relevant statutes. Pears admitted that he was drunk on the night of the accident. He further agreed that he was physically and mentally substantially impaired while in Tommy's. Kathy Hill, who spent a substantial portion of the evening with Pears, testified that Pears was staggering when they arrived at her house. Pears broke a lotion bottle while using Hill's bathroom. His driving, both between Los Amigos and Hill's house and between Hill's house and Tommy's, was fast and reckless. He experienced difficulty walking to the foosball table once inside Tommy's. At the service station Pears was staggering and slurring his words. Tommy's emphasizes other passages from Hill's testimony. Pears' conduct while playing foosball wasn't bad. He operated the controls without difficulty. He did not spill his drink and was not loud or abusive at Tommy's. In Hill's opinion, Pears' reckless driving that evening was due not to a lack of control over the truck, but rather to his disregard for the rules of the road. Other witnesses, who observed Pears for a shorter period of time than did Hill, formed various opinions about his sobriety. [9] Joseph Wotopka, who saw Pears leave Los Amigos, described him as wasted, and saw him bang into a table on his way out. Milo and Iris Jackovich talked and drank with Pears for some twenty minutes earlier in the evening at Los Amigos. They both testified that he seemed fine, not drunk. Two [10] of the three witnesses who saw Pears at Hill's house testified that he appeared to be drunk and one [11] testified that he did not. Of the three witnesses (other than Hill) who saw Pears at Tommy's, one [12] said that he was obviously drunk and two [13] testified that he was not. Three more witnesses testified about Pears' condition at the scene of the accident. Richard Monsey, who found Pears in his truck after the crash, watched him do a back flip out of the passenger door and land on his feet. Monsey testified that Pears looked like he'd been drinking a little bit. Officer Whitney testified that he didn't think Pears met the definition of a drunken person within the meaning of the statutes. Isaac Tolliver also witnessed Pears' back flip, but suspected that Pears might have been drinking only on the basis of what Pears said after the accident. Obviously, the foregoing testimony is conflicting. The legislative history of AS 04.16.030, as noted previously, reflects an intent to let the jury evaluate whether or not a patron of a bar has exhibited such outward manifestations as to be recognizable as a drunken person. We conclude that reasonable jurors might well have disagreed over the extent, if any, of Pears' physical and mental impairment. The superior court thus acted properly in denying Kavorkian's J.N.O.V. motion on the issue of whether Pears was a drunken person.