Opinion
No. 27,107.
Filed October 17, 1938.
1. AUTOMOBILES — Offenses — Driving While Intoxicated — Questions of Fact — Intoxication. — In prosecution for operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, question whether defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time and place charged was one of fact for the court or jury. p. 579.
2. CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Review — Questions of Fact — Sufficiency of Evidence. — Supreme Court will not weigh the evidence and will consider only that most favorable to the State in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. p. 579.
3. AUTOMOBILES — Offenses — Driving While Intoxicated — Sufficiency of Evidence — Influence of Intoxicating Liquor. — Testimony of three witnesses that defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time in question was sufficient to support a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. p. 579.
From Vigo Circuit Court; John W. Gerdink, Judge.
Harmon L. Blood was convicted of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he appealed. Affirmed.
John H. Weddle, and Raymond J. Kearns, for appellant.
Omer S. Jackson, Attorney-General, and James K. Northam, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of section 1, chapter 126, Acts of 1937, Burns `Ann. St. 1933, § 47-517 (June, 1938 Supp.).
There was a plea of not guilty, followed by a trial by the court, and a finding and judgment of guilty. The motion for a new trial assigned as reasons: (1) that the finding of the court is contrary to law, and (2) that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The overruling of the motion for a new trial is the only error assigned.
Whether appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time and place charged, was a question of fact for the court. Basson v. State (1933), 205 Ind. 532, 187 1-3. N.E. 344. The record discloses that three witnesses for the state testified that at the time in question appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This court will not weigh the evidence, and in considering the evidence we will consider only that which is most favorable to the state. Carlin v. State (1933), 204 Ind. 644, 184 N.E. 543.
The judgment is affirmed.