Opinion
20-P-851
06-25-2021
COMMONWEALTH v. Alejandra MATTINGLY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, Alejandra Mattingly, was convicted of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), second offense, in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a ) (1). On appeal, she contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
Discussion. "In determining the validity of a claim challenging the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence at trial, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth to determine whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572, 578-579 (2011), quoting Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). "The inferences that support a conviction ‘need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not be necessary or inescapable.’ " Commonwealth v. Waller, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 295, 303 (2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707, 713 (2014).
"In order to be convicted of an OUI, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) operated a motor vehicle, (2) on a public way, (3) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor." Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624, 635 (2015). The defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that she was under the influence of alcohol. We disagree.
To prove this element, "the Commonwealth need not prove that the defendant was drunk, only that alcohol diminished her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely." Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 392 (2017). Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient to do so. The defendant was initially observed driving down the middle of a two-lane highway, and while Officer Mark Knapp of the Wellesley Police Department followed her, she repeatedly crossed over the fog line and drifted within the roadway. Further, when the defendant pulled her vehicle into the parking lot, and Officer Knapp activated his emergency lights, the defendant did not instantly place her car in park. Rather, she placed it in reverse, causing Officer Knapp to activate his air horn to prevent her from hitting his police cruiser. See Jewett, 471 Mass. at 636 (erratic driving and nearly striking parked vehicle evidence of intoxication). Additionally, when Officer Knapp approached the vehicle and spoke to the defendant, she "exhibited classic symptoms of alcohol intoxication." Gallagher, supra. Her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, her speech was slurred, and the officer noted a moderate odor of alcohol. When she was out of the vehicle, she was unsteady on her feet, she admitted to consuming alcohol that evening, albeit in varying amounts throughout the encounter, and she was unable to properly perform the field sobriety tests. See id. at 392-393 (listing classic symptoms of alcohol impairment).
The defendant argues that this evidence was nevertheless insufficient because each factor that points toward her intoxication could also support an equally reasonable inference that she was engaged in innocent behavior. For example, she contends that the officer could have mistaken her Spanish accent for slurred speech, and that her inability to adequately perform the field sobriety tests could have reasonably been a result of the cold, windy weather. These, however, are matters of weight and credibility for the jury. See Commonwealth v. Mendez, 476 Mass. 512, 524 (2017) ("although the jury were free to adopt the defendants’ version of events, they were also free to reach a different rational result"). To accept the defendant's arguments, "we would have to view the evidence in the light least favorable to the Commonwealth, which, of course, we cannot do." Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 393, quoting Commonwealth v. Arias, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 429, 435 (2010). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to support the defendant's OUI conviction.
There was testimony at trial that it was a cold and windy evening.
Judgment affirmed.