Opinion ID: 2378953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the evidence support a conviction for driving under the influence of cocaine?

Text: [¶ 17] Mr. Breazeale's third issue is also one of the sufficiency of the evidence, and we apply the same standard of review. Mr. Breazeale was also convicted of aggravated homicide by vehicle under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-106(b)(i), which provides that A person is guilty of aggravated homicide by vehicle ... if: (i) While operating or driving a vehicle in violation of [Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§] 10-6-103, 31-5-233 or XX-XX-XXX, he causes the death of another person and the violation is the proximate cause of the death[.] In Mr. Breazeale's case, he was accused of driving in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(b)(ii)(B), which prohibits a person from driving or having actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree that renders him incapable of safely driving. [¶ 18] At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that the blood and urine samples taken from Mr. Breazeale after the wreck tested positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites. An expert witness explained that the metabolites indicated Mr. Breazeale had used cocaine in the recent past. This was consistent with the testimony of a friend of Mr. Breazeale, who said that the two had used cocaine two days before the wreck. The expert witness further indicated that although the cocaine metabolites were present, that did not mean there was any cocaine present in Mr. Breazeale's system. Because there was no cocaine in his system, only cocaine metabolites, Mr. Breazeale argues that he could not have been under the influence of cocaine at the time of the wreck. The evidence was therefore insufficient, he claims, to prove that he was driving while under the influence of a controlled substance. [¶ 19] Mr. Breazeale's argument misses the mark. As discussed further in the next section, the prosecution alleged that Mr. Breazeale's prior use of cocaine could have affected his physical condition. But the prosecution's basic theory, as reflected in the jury instructions, was that Mr. Breazeale was under the influence of glue, aerosol or other toxic vapor which, when intentionally inhaled or sniffed, results in impairment of an individual's ability to drive safely. This language is taken from the definition of a controlled substance found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(a)(ii)(B). The record contains ample evidence from which a rational jury could find that Mr. Breazeale was under the influence of a controlled substance after he inhaled the canned air.