Derosiers v. District of Columbia
19 A.3d 796
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Appellant Derosiers was convicted of possession of an open container of alcohol in a vehicle (POCA-V) under D.C. Code § 25-1001(a)(2).
- Evidence at trial showed a glass jar with a clear liquid next to appellant in a parked car; officers smelled alcohol and observed appellant appeared intoxicated.
- Officer Matula testified the jar’s liquid smelled like vodka, and he identified it as an alcoholic beverage based on experience.
- Appellant admitted drinking earlier in the day; officers poured out the liquid and did not save a sample for testing.
- Judge Demeo credited the officers’ testimony and found the liquid contained alcohol; Superior Court affirmed the conviction.
- The issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove alcohol content without a chemical test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sensory evidence suffices to prove alcohol content. | Derosiers argues Reid requires scientific proof of alcohol content. | Derosiers contends the government failed to prove alcohol content without testing. | Yes; evidence sufficient based on officer’s sensory identification. |
| Role of Reid vs. Stagecrafters in proving alcohol content without chemical analysis. | Reid controls; no adequate proof of alcohol content without testing. | Stagecrafters allows expert sensory testimony to prove alcohol content. | Stagecrafters controls; Reid not controlling here. |
| Standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in POCA-V. | Government must show beyond a reasonable doubt the beverage contained alcohol. | Evidence supported by officer’s experience and odor. | Court affirmed; sufficient evidence supported POCA-V conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stagecrafters Club, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 89 A.2d 876 (D.C.1952) (officers’ knowledge from experience can prove alcohol content without chemical analysis)
- Reid v. District of Columbia, 980 A.2d 1131 (D.C.2009) (concerns with improperly used breath test; not controlling on sensory proof of alcohol content)
- Thompson v. United States, 678 A.2d 24 (D.C.1996) (circumstantial proof of identity of controlled substance via expertise)
- Bernard v. United States, 575 A.2d 1191 (D.C.1990) (experience-based testimony may establish identity of substances)
- Alvarez v. United States, 576 A.2d 713 (D.C.1990) (addressed alcohol content in a different open container context)