Opinion ID: 2512385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We conclude that the district court properly applied the plain meaning of under the influence and ruled that the State must prove a connection between the intoxication and the defendant's inability to drive safely. However, the district court concluded that the State did not offer sufficient evidence to the grand jury to support Burcham's indictment for being under the influence. We disagree. In reviewing a district court's order granting a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of probable cause, this court determines whether all of the evidence received at the grand jury proceeding establishes probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant[ ] committed it. [35] This court will not overturn the district court's order unless the district court committed substantial error. [36] The grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence, but instead decides whether probable cause supports the indictment. [37] The grand jury has a duty to weigh all evidence submitted to them. [38] NRS 172.155(1) requires that the grand jury, prior to indicting the accused, find probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person charged committed the crime. Further, [t]he finding of probable cause may be based on slight, even `manginal' evidence. [39] Therefore, the State's burden is not to present to the grand jury evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but enough evidence to support a reasonable inference that the defendant committed the crime charged. [40] [T]he State is not required to negate all inferences which might explain his conduct, but only to present enough evidence to support a reasonable inference that the accused committed the offense. [41] We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that Burcham was driving under the influence and caused Whisman's death. A witness to the collision testified that she and Whisman, who was stopped in the lane next to her, had been stopped at the red light for at least one minute. Burcham, who was speeding, failed to stop at the red light and rear-ended Whisman, pushing his car through the intersection and into a ditch. Burcham smelled of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot and watery, he admitted to drinking the night before, and he had a BAC of 0.07 within an hour of the collision. Based on the foregoing, the grand jury could reasonably have inferred that Burcham was under the influence to the degree that the alcohol made him incapable of driving safely. Thus, we conclude that the district court substantially erred by dismissing Burcham's indictment for being under the influence pursuant to NRS 484.3795( l )(a).