COMMONWEALTH v. DORVILUS (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a jury-waived trial, the defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor (OUI), negligent operation of a motor vehicle, resisting arrest, and vandalizing property. On appeal, the defendant claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for OUI. We affirm.

“When analyzing whether the record evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court is not required to ‘ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ․ Rather, the relevant ‘question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).” Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 385, 392 (2017).

When evaluating sufficiency, the evidence must be reviewed with specific reference to the substantive elements of the offense. See Jackson, supra at 324 n.16; Latimore, supra at 677-678. In the circumstances of this case, to establish the defendant's guilt of OUI, the Commonwealth was required to prove that the defendant (1) operated a motor vehicle, (2) on a public way, (3) while under the influence of alcohol. Commonwealth v. Palacios, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 722, 728 (2016). At this defendant's trial, the first two elements, operation of a vehicle and public way, were stipulated to by the parties. Therefore, the only element the Commonwealth was required to prove was that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. However, the Commonwealth need not prove that the defendant was drunk, only that alcohol diminished his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. Commonwealth v. Stathopoulos, 401 Mass. 453, 458 (1988).

Here, the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth revealed that the defendant drove off the road into a line of trees, which caused considerable damage to the car. The defendant smelled of alcohol, had difficulty focusing,² had glassy eyes and slurred speech, was hostile, spewed obscenities, kicked the police cruiser's door, and struggled with and physically threatened the responding police officers.³ Also, a bottle of Heineken beer was found in the front passenger area of the vehicle. From all of this, a rational trier of fact was entitled to find the defendant guilty of OUI.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The defendant's claim that the severity of the accident could account for his confused state and slurred speech fails to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. The same is true for his claim that he could have had blood shot eyes because of the late hour of the incident. See Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677.

3.   Contrary to the defendant's claim, it was a fair inference from the evidence that he drove off the road because he fell asleep due to his consumption of alcohol. See Commonwealth v. Casale, 381 Mass. 167, 173 (1980) (“inferences drawn by the jury need only be reasonable and possible and need not be necessary or inescapable”).