Court Opinion

ID: 9942087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 15:06:18.001765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:40.304563
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  23-P-616

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                               DAMIAN D. MEOLA.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       After a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant was

 found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the

 influence of liquor (OUI).1        On appeal, he claims there was

 insufficient evidence to support that conviction.              We affirm.

       Discussion.     The defendant claims that there was

 insufficient evidence to support his conviction for OUI where

 the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was under the influence

 of liquor.     We disagree.

       "When analyzing whether the record evidence is sufficient
       to support a conviction, an appellate court is not required
       to 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the
       trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' . . .
       Rather, the relevant 'question is whether, after viewing
       the evidence in the light most favorable to the
       prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found

 1 The defendant was found not responsible for a civil motor
 vehicle infraction for failure to stop at a red light.
    the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
    doubt.'"

Commonwealth v. Rocheteau, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 17, 19 (2009),

quoting Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979).

    When evaluating sufficiency, the evidence must be reviewed

with specific reference to the substantive elements of the

offense.    See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 n.16

(1979); Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677-678.    In the circumstances of

this case, to establish the defendant's guilt of OUI, in

violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1), the Commonwealth was

required to prove that the defendant (1) operated a motor

vehicle, (2) on a public way, (3) while under the influence of

alcohol.    Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730, 733-734

(2023).    Here, as noted above, the defendant challenges only the

third element, i.e., proof that he was impaired.

    In the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the

evidence demonstrated that the arresting officer saw the

defendant drive through a red light at an intersection without

stopping.   The officer pulled over the defendant, provided a

warning, and let the defendant leave.     As the defendant drove

away, the officer saw that the defendant's right rear tire was

flat and the tire's rim was grinding against the pavement.      The

officer once again pulled over the defendant.    On this occasion,

the officer stood closer to the defendant than she had for the

                                  2
first stop.   While conversing with the defendant, the officer

noticed that he was slurring his speech and his eyes were

bloodshot and glassy.    The officer could also smell the odor of

alcohol coming from the vehicle.

     The officer had the defendant perform field sobriety tests,

specifically the nine-step walk and turn and the one-legged

stand.   For neither test did the defendant follow the officer's

instructions, nor did he complete the tests as directed.2    After

the defendant nearly fell on several occasions, the officer

ended the tests for the defendant's safety.     The officer then

formed the opinion that the defendant was intoxicated, and he

was placed under arrest.

     As recited above, the defendant exhibited the "classic

symptoms of alcohol intoxication," including glassy and

bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol emanating from his person,

and slurred speech.     Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 91 Mass. App.

2 When performing the nine-step walk and turn test, the defendant
took fifteen steps out, missing heel-to-toe on several steps.
While taking these steps, he stepped off the line several times
and raised his arms for balance. The officer reminded the
defendant that he only needed to take nine steps each way and
instructed him to continue the test. The defendant then took
fourteen steps back, without stepping heel-to-toe, and he
stepped off the line. At no point during the test did he count
his steps out loud as he had been instructed. During his
attempt at the one-legged stand test, the defendant could not
keep his foot off the ground without raising his arms for
balance. He also shuffled his standing leg and hopped in place
while struggling to keep his balance. He again failed to count
out loud as instructed.

                                   3
Ct. 385, 392 (2017).   In addition to these signs, the defendant

could not follow the officer's instructions on how to complete

the field sobriety tests.   His performance on the tests was not

only poor, but also the officer had to stop the tests to prevent

the defendant from falling and hurting himself.   From this

evidence, a rational jury were entitled to find the defendant

was impaired and guilty of OUI.   See id. at 392-393.

     The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient for

a variety of reasons, including that he was allowed to drive

away after the first stop, he was not speeding, his headlights

were on, he did not improperly signal, he drove in the correct

lane of the road, he stopped when the officer activated her

cruiser's lights, he was able to produce his license, there was

no alcohol in the car, and that an odor of alcohol does not

correlate with intoxication.3   The defendant couples this with

the claim that the Commonwealth's case was the product of an

inexperienced officer's lay opinion that he was intoxicated.

All of these claims were proper fodder for the jury to consider

and for counsel to argue.   On appeal, however, we must view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and

these claims are not oriented as such.   See Latimore, 378 Mass.

3 The defendant also implies that any of his irregularities or
imbalance during the field sobriety tests were caused by poor
weather conditions, or from the fact that he had had knee
surgeries and his hips replaced.

                                  4
at 677.   Moreover, we are not obligated to reread the record

from the defendant's perspective.    See Rocheteau, 74 Mass. App.

Ct. at 19.

    Finally, the defendant erroneously claims that the

officer's observations of his intoxication were insufficient to

establish that he was impaired in the absence of evidence that

the defendant was unable to operate his car safely.    Rather, in

an OUI prosecution, the Commonwealth must prove "that the

defendant's consumption of alcohol diminished the defendant's

ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.    The Commonwealth

need not prove that the defendant actually drove in an unsafe or

erratic manner, but it must prove a diminished capacity to

operate safely."   Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169, 173

(1985).   See Commonwealth v. Rarick, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 349, 353

(2015) (sufficient evidence of impairment without evidence of

erratic operation or collision and field sobriety tests not

performed).   Similarly, to establish the element of impairment,

"the Commonwealth need not prove that the defendant was drunk,

only that alcohol diminished [his] ability to operate a motor

                                 5
vehicle safely."    Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 392.   The

Commonwealth properly carried its burden.

                                      Judgment affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Meade, Blake &
                                        Desmond, JJ.4),

                                      Assistant Clerk

Entered:    February 20, 2024.

4   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  6