Commonwealth v. Alberto Vega, Jr., 24-P-0103

Alberto Vega, Jr. was convicted in District Court of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OUI) in August 2023 after a jury trial.
Vega appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the element that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor while driving.
A civilian witnessed Vega driving at high speed, swerving, and passing vehicles improperly (mainly in the breakdown lane) and reported it to 911.
Police observed physical signs of intoxication and irregular behavior during arrest and booking, including glassy eyes, odor of alcohol, emotional fluctuations, and performance issues during roadside tests.
Vega admitted at the scene to drinking alcohol, acknowledged being “a little tipsy,” and discussed his drinking problem with officers.
The Appeals Court reviewed whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to support the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for OUI conviction	Evidence (behavior, admissions, observations) was sufficient to prove intoxication impaired driving	Evidence only shows hurried driving; no proof of impairment; officer did not see diminished capacity	Evidence was sufficient for rational jurors to infer impairment; conviction affirmed

Commonwealth v. Rarick, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 349 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in OUI cases)
Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. 653 (Mass. 2009) (reviewing sufficiency of evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (test for sufficiency of evidence at trial)
Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169 (Mass. 1985) (requirement for Commonwealth to prove diminished capacity, not actual unsafe driving)
Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 317 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) (proof of drunkenness is not required for OUI conviction)