Opinion ID: 2210322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Text: In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the question presented is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, this court will accept that evidence, and the most favorable inferences that can be fairly drawn therefrom which will support the verdict. State v. Huettl, 379 N.W.2d 298, 301 (S.D.1985) (citing State v. Braun, 351 N.W.2d 149, 151 (S.D.1984). This court will only set aside a jury verdict where the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence do not sustain a rational theory of guilt. Id. at 302 ( citing State v. Wedemann, 339 N.W.2d 112 (S.D.1983). Defendant was charged under SDCL 32-23-1, which provides: A person may not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while: ... (2) under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the jury verdict. He principally asserts that there was insufficient evidence to show that he had been driving a motor vehicle under the influence on Roberts County Highway 7. State, rather than merely alleging violation of the statute in general terms, added new elements to the proof. The Information specifically alleged that defendant did drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, to wit: the said [defendant] drove a 1979 Chevrolet truck bearing Minnesota license # 514BHW for the year 1988 along and upon Roberts County Highway # 7 near the Rock Island Resort, Roberts County, South Dakota at a time when he was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. (Emphasis added.) Thus, State increased its burden to show not only that defendant was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, BUT ALSO that he was driving a certain specific vehicle, with a specific license plate AND that it was being operated at a specific location. State v. Brown, 285 N.W.2d 843 (S.D.1979); State v. Sudrala, 79 S.D. 587, 116 N.W.2d 243 (1962); cf. State v. Johnson, 76 S.D. 37, 71 N.W.2d 733 (1955). We conclude, however, that the jury could have reasonably found that defendant was driving on Highway 7 while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Sheriff Long observed the defendant's tire tracks coming from the highway. Testimony showed that the only way he could have been there was by way of Highway 7. The sheriff personally observed various signs of defendant's intoxication, at one point describing defendant as falling down drunk. Further, there is defendant's own statement that he had consumed alcohol that day and that he was drunk.