Opinion
16-P-472
08-08-2017
COMMONWEALTH v. Johnson M. WACHIRA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), second offense, in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a )(1). He appeals, arguing that the judge erred in denying his motions for a required finding of not guilty. We affirm.
Discussion. When reviewing the denial of a motion for a required finding of not guilty, we determine whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and considering the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, was sufficient to satisfy any rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that each element of the crime was proven. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 (1979). In order to sustain an OUI conviction, the Commonwealth must prove the defendant (1) operated a motor vehicle (2) on a public way (3) while under the influence of alcohol. Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 420 Mass. 630, 631 (1995), citing G. L. c. 90, § 24. The defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to establish he was under the influence of alcohol. We disagree.
The defendant first moved for a required finding when the Commonwealth rested, then renewed his motion after he rested without presenting any evidence. There is thus no issue here regarding "deterioration" in the Commonwealth's case. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Basch, 386 Mass. 620, 622 n.2 (1982).
The defendant correctly does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence as to the elements of operation of the vehicle and doing so on a public way.
The police officers who interacted with the defendant shortly after the accident gave testimony from which a rational jury could have concluded that the "defendant was belligerent, unsteady on his feet and smelled of alcohol [,] ... factors that may support an inference of diminished capacity to operate safely due to intoxication." Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 317, 321 (1994). Officer Vellios testified that the defendant had glassy, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet, smelled strongly of alcohol, and, notably, after being told to stand on the side of the road and await further instruction, attempted to leave the scene in his disabled vehicle. Sergeant Celia also testified that while at the Brockton police station, the defendant was unsteady, smelled strongly of alcohol, and was belligerent at times.
Moreover, Officer Vellios testified that he observed a bottle of liquor with one-third of its contents missing on the passenger's side floor of the defendant's vehicle. He also told the jury that the defendant had difficulty in retrieving his license from his wallet, admitted that he had recently consumed an alcoholic beverage, and exhibited behavior that alternated between cooperative and belligerent during the booking process. The passenger of the other vehicle also testified that the defendant was stumbling and slurring his speech.
--------
The jury also heard that in Sergeant Celia's estimation, the defendant had difficulty performing all four of the field sobriety tests he was administered. The jury could have considered this as evidence of the defendant's intoxication. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 772, 774 n.1 (2013). Such "opinion testimony of police who observed the defendant may also be taken into account" to determine whether the defendant had diminished capacity to operate a motor vehicle. Sudderth, supra.
Finally, the incident began when the defendant drove his vehicle into the rear end of another vehicle while it was stopped at a red traffic light. Although the accident alone did not prove he was impaired, the totality of the evidence was sufficient to link the defendant's behavior to his consumption of alcohol. See Commonwealth v. Marley, 396 Mass. 433, 442 (1985).
In support of his argument that there was insufficient evidence of impairment, the defendant refers to circumstances which he suggests contradict the conclusion that he was intoxicated. He first points to the lack of statements from others at the scene that he appeared intoxicated, such as the passenger in her telephone call to 911 and the responding emergency personnel, as evidenced by the police report. The defendant also cites his British accent as the reason his speech may have seemed odd, and his precarious footwear as to why he was unsteady on his feet. These are certainly matters the jury were entitled to weigh in making their determination. But considering the record in the manner the defendant implores us to would require us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to him. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and, given our reasoning above, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. See Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677-678 ; Commonwealth v. Rarick, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 349, 351 (2015) ("[W]hen we review the evidence that was presented at trial to determine if it was sufficient, ‘we do not weigh the supporting evidence against conflicting evidence’ " [quotation omitted] ); Id. at 353 ("The defendant's contention reduces to a claim about the weight of the evidence. However, the weight of the evidence is not the yardstick we use to test whether the evidence satisfies the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt").
Judgment affirmed.