Opinion ID: 1613782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Sickler's motion to dismiss because of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify a verdict against Sickler as a matter of law.

Text: Sickler argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the evidence was insufficient to convict him of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The record reveals, however, that there was more than ample evidence to convict Sickler. Furthermore, neither party made any objections, took any exceptions or proposed any additional instructions. The general rule is that when no objections were made by the defendant to any instructions of the court, and the defendant proposed no instructions, there is no question concerning the instructions before this court on appeal. State v. Holloway, 482 N.W.2d 306 (S.D.1992); Carlson v. First Nat. Bank, 429 N.W.2d 463 (S.D.1988); State v. White Mountain, 332 N.W.2d 726 (S.D.1983); State v. Halverson, 87 S.D. 110, 203 N.W.2d 421 (1973). Finally, we have reviewed Sickler's argument that no probable cause existed for his arrest and that he did not receive his implied consent rights. We find these arguments totally lacking in merit. Affirmed. WUEST, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., dissents.