Opinion
No. 11–P–1652.
2012-10-23
COMMONWEALTH v. Paul L. McKENNEY.
By the Court (COHEN, RUBIN CARHART JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
After a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI), in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)( a )(1). He appeals, contending that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to establish that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We affirm.
The arresting officer testified that he pulled over the defendant's truck after observing it cross over and straddle a double yellow line and travel into oncoming traffic for approximately fifteen or twenty feet, make a wide right turn from the left travel lane, and strike a snow bank on the right side of the road before drifting back to the left and again crossing the yellow line. When the officer approached, the defendant was the only occupant of the vehicle. The officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol, and observed that the defendant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that his speech was slurred. When the defendant got out of the truck, he slid out of his seat, his gait was unsteady, and the crotch area of his pants was soaked, as though he had urinated on himself. Being of the opinion that road conditions did not allow for safe field testing, the officer did not ask the defendant to perform sobriety tests before reading him his Miranda rights and placing him under arrest. After being transported to the police station for booking, the defendant stated that he had consumed “two beers,” needed help taking off his boots, and was disoriented as to time. This testimony was more than sufficient to establish that the defendant was operating while impaired by alcohol. See Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169, 172–173 (1985). See also Commonwealth v. Stathopoulos, 401 Mass. 453, 457–458 (1988).
While conceding that there is no requirement that a police officer perform a field sobriety test at the time of arrest, see Commonwealth v. Ames, 410 Mass. 603, 609 (1991), that nevertheless is the crux of the defendant's argument. There is no merit to the point. Nor is there any merit to the defendant's contention that the Commonwealth's case was rendered insufficient because the defendant's witness, his father, offered alternative explanations for the defendant's operation of the truck and his physical appearance. The existence of contradictory evidence does not mean that the Commonwealth's case has deteriorated. See Cramer v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 106, 110 (1994). The credibility of the witnesses was for the judge, as fact finder, to decide. Commonwealth v. Platt, 440 Mass. 396, 404 (2003).
Judgment affirmed.