A review of the evidence presented at trial is required to determine whether any material facts were in dispute and, if so, were properly left to the jury's determination. SeeCity of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 353, 311 N.W.2d 620, 621 (1981). The first element of a BAC violation is that the defendant drove a motor vehicle on a highway.
A review of the evidence presented at trial is required to determine whether any material facts were in dispute and were properly left to the jury's determination. City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 353, 311 N.W.2d 620, 621 (1981). Since the driving element was not disputed, we will review the evidence pertaining to whether Turicik was under the influence of intoxicants at the time he was stopped.
Id. at 451, 334 N.W.2d 80.¶ 9 In City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 311 N.W.2d 620 (1981), our supreme court discussed the propriety of directing a verdict against a defendant in an OWI forfeiture matter. The fact of intoxication and operation of a vehicle were the only essential elements in that case, and it was undisputed that Brooks was operating a motor vehicle just prior to his apprehension.
Although erratic driving may be evidence that the defendant is under the influence of an intoxicant, the statute "does not require proof of an appreciable interference in the management of a motor vehicle." Milwaukee v. Johnston, 21 Wis.2d 411, 413, 124 N.W.2d 690 (1963); City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 357, 311 N.W.2d 620 (1981). The state need only prove that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle and was under the influence of an intoxicant at the time.
A review of the evidence at trial is required to determine whether any material facts were in dispute and were properly left to the jury's determination. City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 353, 311 N.W.2d 620 (1981).
Turner apparently means to argue more narrowly that the circuit court may not grant a plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict of guilty in a traffic forfeiture case — Turner and the State agreed to have the circuit court direct a not guilty verdict for a separate charge against Turner for passing in a no passing zone. ¶ 3 Regardless which argument Turner is making, it is foreclosed by City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis. 2d 351, 311 N.W.2d 620 (1981). In Brooks, also a traffic forfeiture case involving an intoxicated driving offense, the supreme court concluded that the circuit court should have directed a guilty verdict when the evidence showed that the elements of the offense were uncontroverted.
A proceeding to enforce a municipal ordinance is a civil action, and a directed verdict of guilty may be entered if the elements of the offense are indisputably proven and there is no evidence to sustain a defense. SeeCity of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 358-59, 311 N.W.2d 620, 624 (1981); see alsoCity ofMilwaukee v. Bichel, 35 Wis.2d 66, 68-69, 150 N.W.2d 419, 421 (1967). A motion for a directed verdict may not be granted "unless the court is satisfied that, considering all credible evidence . . . in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, there is no credible evidence to sustain a finding in favor of such party."
Where the elements of a civil offense are undisputed, a case should be taken from the jury and a verdict of guilty entered by the court. City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 353, 311 N.W.2d 620, 621 (1981). This court has reviewed the record and agrees with the State that there is no dispute that Kraemer met all the elements of the civil offense.
The standard for granting a motion for a directed verdict is whether there is an absence of material disputed fact and no credible evidence or reasonable inferences in support of the non-movant. City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 358, 311 N.W.2d 620, 624 (1981); see alsoLiebe v. CityFinance Co., 98 Wis.2d 10, 18-19, 295 N.W.2d 16, 20 (Ct. App. 1980) (directed verdict should be granted only "where the evidence is so clear and convincing that a reasonable and impartial jury properly instructed could reach but one conclusion" or there is an absence of disputed material fact). Our review is de novo. SeeWisconsin Natural GasCo. v. Ford, Bacon Davis Constr. Co., 96 Wis.2d 314, 336-340, 291 N.W.2d 825, 836-837 (1980).
The trial court applied the correct standard in analyzing the motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the permissive use question should have been submitted to the jury. See § 805.14(1), (4) (5)(d), STATS.; City of Omro v. Brooks, 104 Wis.2d 351, 358, 311 N.W.2d 620, 624 (1981) (standard for granting a directed verdict is whether there is an absence of material disputed fact and no credible evidence or reasonable inference in support of non-movant); Liebe v. City Finance Co., 98 Wis.2d 10, 18-19, 295 N.W.2d 16, 20 (Ct.App. 1980) (directed verdict should be granted only "where the evidence is so clear and convincing that a reasonable and impartial jury properly instructed could reach but one conclusion," or there is an absence of disputed material fact). Therefore, we need not analyze the trial court's ruling in terms of a motion to change the jury's answer, see § 805.14(5)(c), STATS., ("Any party may move the court to change an answer in the verdict on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the answer."