COMMONWEALTH v. DZAGAN PATRICK (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant, Barbara J. Dzagan-Patrick, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 24. On appeal, she claims there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.

The jury could have found the following facts. On June 10, 2017, at 1:30 A.M., Officer Ian Brown, a reserve police officer in Shirley, observed a car accelerate through an intersection while making a left turn, and failing to stop for a stop sign. After pulling the car over, Brown noticed that the defendant had “glassy and bloodshot eyes” and “slow and slurred speech.” He also “detected ․ an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle and her presence.” When Brown asked the defendant if she had any alcohol that night, she responded that she had a few eight-ounce beers about forty-five minutes before she was stopped.

Based on his observations, Brown called for backup and asked the defendant to perform some field sobriety tests. She agreed. Brown administered the “nine-step walk-and-turn test.” Prior to starting the test, the defendant told Brown that she “understood and that she would pass the test no problem because she felt she wasn't drunk.” The defendant failed the test. Brown then asked her if she had any medical conditions that would affect her performance on the field sobriety tests. Without elaborating, she said that she had a degenerative disc disease that may have “something to do with” her performance on the tests. When asked if she was able to perform the test, the defendant stated that she would “try her best.” The defendant attempted the one-legged stand test. Brown stopped the test out of “general fear [for] her safety.” Brown formed the opinion that she was intoxicated and placed the defendant under arrest.

We review a claim of insufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979). “[The relevant] question is whether ․ any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 677, quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979). The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle, on a public way, under the influence of alcohol. Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 420 Mass. 630, 631 (1995). The defendant only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the third element.

The Commonwealth does not need “to prove that the defendant was drunk.” Commonwealth v. Stathopoulos, 401 Mass. 453, 458 (1988). See Commonwealth v. Lyseth, 250 Mass. 555, 558 (1925). It is only required to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's consumption of alcohol diminished [her] ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.” Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169, 173 (1985). Therefore, the Commonwealth may meet its burden by providing evidence of “the classic indicia of impairment.” Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624, 636 (2015). Here, the defendant failed to stop at a stop sign, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, slow and slurred speech, admitted to drinking a few beers, and failed two field sobriety tests. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there was more than sufficient evidence of the defendant's impairment.²

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   On appeal the defendant contends that her degenerative disc disease precluded her from passing the field sobriety tests; however, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we are required to do when the issue is sufficiency of the evidence, we are not persuaded. Apart from the defendant's bare statement to the officer, there was no evidence at trial about the defendant's medical condition or its implications for her ability to perform the test. See Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 393 (2017).