COMMONWEALTH v. PENA (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant, Jancarlos Pena, appeals from his conviction following a jury trial in District Court of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1). Concluding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

1. Standard of review. When reviewing the denial of a motion for a required finding of not guilty, “we consider the evidence introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539, 547 (2017). “The inferences that support a conviction ‘need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not be necessary or inescapable.’ ” Commonwealth v. Quinones, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 162 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Waller, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 295, 303 (2016). Here, “the Commonwealth was required to ‘prove that the defendant (1) physically operated a vehicle; (2) “on a public way or place to which the public has a right of access; and (3) had a blood alcohol content percentage of .08 or greater or was impaired by the influence of intoxicating liquor.” ’ ” Commonwealth v. Faherty, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 133-134 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. AdonSoto, 475 Mass. 497, 509 (2016). Only the third element is contested by the defendant.

2. Sufficiency of the evidence. At approximately 3:45 a.m., the defendant struck a parked truck with the vehicle he was driving with enough force to spin his own vehicle around. The defendant was unsteady on his feet and stumbled trying to do a one-legged stand. He was unable to recite the alphabet. The defendant's words were “very slurred” and he “had a glassy look in his eyes.” The defendant was unreasonably belligerent, telling the owner of the truck to “F-off.”

The truck owner and both police officers noticed a strong odor of alcohol from the defendant's person. The defendant admitted to drinking Hennessy that night, and there was a “half bottle” of Hennessy on the passenger side floor. He misidentified the town he was in as Borderland. The truck owner and both police officers opined that the defendant was drunk. These “classic symptoms of alcohol intoxication” provided sufficient evidence to convict the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 392 (2017). See Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624, 636 (2015) (sufficient evidence where defendant “drove erratically,” “was unsteady on his feet, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, smelled of alcohol, and slurred his words”); Commonwealth v. Tsonis, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 214, 219 (2019) (defendant unresponsive, “eyes were glassy and bloodshot,” and “odor of alcohol [was] emanating from the defendant”). The jury could reasonably infer from this evidence and the fact that the defendant struck a parked car that his intoxication “diminished the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.” Commonwealth v. Veronneau, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 477, 479 (2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169, 173 (1985). Accord Jewett, supra (“nearly struck a parked vehicle”); Tsonis, supra (“nearly striking a couple of parked vehicles”).

The jury were entitled to infer that the various indicia of intoxication were caused by the consumption of intoxicating liquor and not the accident or the defendant's knee operations, the most recent of which occurred over one year before the accident. See Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 393. Similarly, the jury were entitled to disbelieve the defendant's testimony and to disbelieve the passenger's testimony that the alcohol bottles in the vehicle belonged to the passenger. See Commonwealth v. Alden, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 438, 445 (2018). Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.