COMMONWEALTH v. CELESTER (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

A jury convicted the defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1). The defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.

Background.² On April 15, 2017, at approximately 2 a.m., Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Murphy responded to a report of a crash on Interstate Highway 95 in Dedham. Upon arriving at the scene, Trooper Murphy observed two damaged vehicles stopped on opposite sides of the northbound highway. The defendant was standing near a vehicle located in the left median. The vehicle had front-end damage, and its driver's-side airbag was deployed. As Trooper Murphy approached the defendant, he saw some powder from the airbag deployment on the defendant's face, but did not see any indication of injury. Trooper Murphy smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath, and observed that the defendant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that he was unsteady on his feet. The defendant told Trooper Murphy that his vehicle collided with a car stopped in the middle of the highway with its lights off, and denied having had any alcohol to drink that night.

The defendant agreed to participate in field sobriety tests to determine whether he was under the influence. The defendant stumbled or shuffled in an uncoordinated manner to the spot where the tests were conducted. Before beginning the tests, Trooper Murphy asked the defendant whether he had any injuries; the defendant responded that he did not. At no point did the defendant complain of any injury resulting from the crash, nor did he request medical attention.

Trooper Murphy first asked the defendant to perform the nine-step-walk-and-turn test, which involves walking heel-to-toe in accordance with specific instructions. The defendant began the exercise before Trooper Murphy had finished delivering the instructions. He then failed to take all steps in a heel-to-toe manner and to keep his arms at his sides rather than raise them for balance. Next, Trooper Murphy administered the one-leg stand test. The defendant did not keep one foot off of the ground for longer than seven seconds, and again failed to comply with all of the instructions. At that point Trooper Murphy concluded that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant was indicted for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI). See G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1). During a one-day jury trial on May 24, 2018, the Commonwealth called one witness, Trooper Murphy; the defendant did not put on any evidence. The defendant was convicted, and timely appealed.

Discussion. The defendant's primary argument is that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support a conviction of OUI. Such a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that “the defendant (1) physically operated a vehicle; (2) ‘on a public way or place;’ ” and (3) while “impaired by the influence of intoxicating liquor” (citations omitted). Commonwealth v. AdonSoto, 475 Mass. 497, 509 (2016). Here the defendant disputes only the element of impairment. To prove impairment, the Commonwealth must show that alcohol contributed to “the defendant's [diminished] ability to operate a vehicle safely” (quotation omitted). Commonwealth v. Stathopoulos, 401 Mass. 453, 458 (1988). In evaluating the defendant's claim we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979).

The thrust of the defendant's argument is that the evidence of impairment was not overwhelming. While he acknowledges the inculpatory facts that came out during Trooper Murphy's testimony, the defendant focuses instead on the absence of details that would further strengthen the Commonwealth's case. He points out, among other things, that he was cooperative with Trooper Murphy, not belligerent; that he did not fall down or steady himself on the car during the field sobriety tests; and that there was no evidence that he slurred his words while speaking with Trooper Murphy.

We are not persuaded. The defendant cites no legal authority for the proposition that evidence of any of the aforementioned details is necessary to prove impairment. A decision to which he attempts to analogize, Commonwealth v. Gibson, does not help him; in that case, we concluded that the evidence, while not overwhelming, was nonetheless sufficient to permit an OUI conviction. 82 Mass. App. Ct. 834, 838 n.4 (2012).

Applying the Latimore standard to the evidence actually adduced at trial, a rational fact finder would have been able to find that the defendant's ability to operate a vehicle was diminished by alcohol. The defendant had been in an accident while traveling on a divided highway, during which he had rear-ended another vehicle. From the beginning of the encounter, Trooper Murphy observed that the defendant “bore many of the classic indicia of impairment,” such as bloodshot and glassy eyes, the odor of alcohol, and unsteadiness on his feet. Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624, 636 (2015). Moreover, the defendant was unable to properly perform both field sobriety tests. See Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 391-393 (2017). The defendant contends that a rational fact finder could have viewed his deficient field test performances as a consequence of the crash rather than of alcohol. Yet the defendant bore no signs of injury and did not complain of pain to Trooper Murphy. Indulging the defendant's suggested inference would impermissibly stray from Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677. See Gallagher, supra at 393.

Finally, the defendant takes aim at Trooper Murphy's testimony about the field sobriety tests. Although the defendant acknowledges that the testimony about his performance on the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests was admissible, he argues that such evidence did not conclusively prove impairment due to intoxication. Putting aside whether that proposition is correct, here there was considerably more evidence of guilt than the field sobriety test, including that the defendant had rear-ended another vehicle on an interstate highway. Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 393.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The facts are taken from those adduced at trial, considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979).