Rule v. State
438 S.W.3d 279
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Rule challenged a DWI conviction after a bench trial in which the State relied on driving behavior, officer observations, and field-sobriety tests to prove intoxication.
- Officer Wicker observed Rule drift left of the dotted line, commit an improper lane change, and fail to signal, leading to a traffic stop and pursuit of sobriety testing.
- Rule administered HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand; HGN noted four of six clues but admitted misadministration; age-related concerns and testing validity were raised.
- Rule refused to sign the Arkansas DWI Statement of Rights and refused a breathalyzer; requested an attorney.
- Corporal Dawson, Rule’s field-training officer, supported the reliability of the tests and described Rule as uncooperative; trial evidence included a video and NHTSA materials noting age limitations of tests.
- The trial court denied the directed-verdict motion, found evidence sufficient to support beyond a reasonable doubt, and Rule was sentenced to 365 days with 364 suspended; Rule appealed on sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the DWI conviction | Rule argues the field tests were improper and insufficient | State contends combined observations and tests support guilt | Yes; evidence viewed in State’s favor supports conviction |
| Whether field sobriety tests were properly admitted given alleged misadministration and age concerns | Rule claims HGN misadministered and tests not validated for over 65 | State relies on additional non-test factors; tests not sole basis for judgment | Tests properly weighed along with other evidence; weight for finder of fact supports conviction |
| Whether officer testimony and refusals to submit to testing are admissible and support intoxication finding | Rule cites lack of breath test and sole infraction as insufficient | Officer's opinion and refusal evidence are admissible and probative | Admissible; corroborative of intoxication alongside observations and behavior |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196 (1999) (opinion testimony on intoxication admissible; corroborates substance evidence)
- Brawner v. State, 428 S.W.3d 600 (2013 Ark. App. 413) (weight and credibility of witnesses for the finder of fact; abuse of discretion standard)
- U.S. v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Md. 2002) (FSTs may be admissible as circumstantial evidence of impairment; not direct BAC)