Court Opinion

ID: 9544872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:02:43.590029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:43.632969
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Justice,
dissenting, with whom RAPER, Justice, joins.
The majority opinion is founded on the contention that there was no evidence submitted at the trial that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. I find the evidence to be plain and uncontroverted that he was under such influence.
After the arresting officer testified that he had stopped appellant after observing him drive his vehicle through two red lights, he testified:
“A. We observed him — I traced him and asked him for his driver’s license, and he had a flushed appearance to his face; his speech was slurred, and he was having some trouble maintaining his balance without leaning up against his car. I asked him to do some sobriety — field sobriety tests for me, which he did, and he did not perform them very well.
“Q. What sobriety tests?
“A. I asked him to stand with his right leg out in front of him and (transcriber cannot understand). And he couldn’t do this without putting his foot down several times. I asked him to take five steps forward, heel to toe, and then turn around and take five steps back towards the heel to toe. He couldn’t do this without catching his balance several times. I asked him to stand at a modified attention with his head back and his eyes closed, and he swayed very badly in this position.
“After giving him the tests I advised him that he was under arrest for driving while intoxicated. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
A sobriety test is a test to determine whether or not a person is sober. “Sober” means “[mjoderate in, or abstinent from, the use of intoxicating liquors,” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. “Intoxicated” means “[ajffected by an intoxicant, under the influence of an intoxicating liquor,” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.
The testimony then was that appellant was given tests to determine if he was sober, i.e., not under the influence of intoxicating liquor; that he did not do well in the tests; and that he was arrested for driving while intoxicated, i.e., while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The majority opinion suggests that there was no evidence to tie in appellant’s appearance and behavior with a cause of intoxication, that there was no evidence “tending to establish that intoxicating liquor was responsible for appellant’s behavior and appearance.” I submit that the above-quoted testimony does just that. The tests given appellant were to determine if he was sober, i.e., not intoxicated. As a result of the tests, he was arrested for driving while intoxicated, i.e., under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Obviously, appellant was arrested because he failed the tests designed to determine whether or not he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Such evidence, in itself, permits a rational conclusion that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Inasmuch as there was absolutely no evidence to the contrary, it was within the right of the trial court to find as a matter of fact that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The district court, in affirming the holding of the police court, properly summarized the evidence on this issue:
“ * * * After stopping him [appellant], he [the witness] noted the defendant’s face was flushed, his speech slurred and his balance most unsteady. In short, he failed the sobriety test administered by the officer. * * * ” (Bracketed material and emphasis added.)
The district court also properly noted the standard for consideration on appeal, quot*31ing from Harvey v. State, Wyo., 596 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1979):
“The oft-repeated rule by which we test the sufficiency of evidence on appeal of a criminal matter is that we examine and accept as true the evidence of the prosecution, leaving out of consideration entirely the evidence of the defendant in conflict therewith, and we give to the evidence of the prosecution every favorable inference which may reasonably and fairly be drawn therefrom. Stated another way — it is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for us, but rather whether it is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the jury when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. [Citations.]”
Also referring to Reinholt v. State, Wyo., 601 P.2d 1311, 1312 (1979); City of Rock Springs v. Police Protection Association, Wyo., 610 P.2d 975, 980 (1980); Brittain v. Booth, Wyo., 601 P.2d 532, 535 (1979).
The evidence was not only sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it was sufficient to establish, without any inference, the finding by the fact finder of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would affirm the district court’s affirmance of the judgment of the city court.