128 A.3d 646
Me.2015Background
- On Nov. 17, 2013, Belhumeur was found alone in a parked car with engine running, headlights on, and the engine revving for at least two hours near a Bangor casino.
- Officer observed Belhumeur slumped in the driver’s seat, left hand on a half‑full beer can, another empty can behind the front seats, and a strong odor of alcohol.
- Officer awakened Belhumeur by yelling and knocking; Belhumeur reached for the steering wheel and later reached for the keys after the officer turned off the ignition.
- Belhumeur nearly fell when exiting the car, performed poorly on field sobriety tests (video admitted), and told the officer he had drunk "two beers" and was somewhat impaired.
- Parties stipulated at trial that Belhumeur was under the influence when arrested and that he refused a blood‑alcohol test.
- Jury convicted Belhumeur of operating under the influence (Class D); he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of operation or attempted operation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports that Belhumeur operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated | State: facts and inferences show operation or attempted operation while impaired | Belhumeur: no rational jury could find he operated or attempted to operate the vehicle | Court: Evidence sufficient; jury could infer he drove it to spot or attempted to drive after waking |
| Whether attempted operation requires substantial step and intent | State: statute and case law allow attempt showing substantial step toward operation | Belhumeur: challenged factual basis for substantial step or intent | Court: Applying attempt standard, jury could find substantial step (reaching for keys/steering) and intent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lowden, 87 A.3d 694 (Me. 2014) (standard for viewing evidence on sufficiency review)
- State v. Jones, 46 A.3d 1125 (Me. 2012) (reviewing sufficiency by viewing evidence in favor of State)
- State v. Haag, 48 A.3d 207 (Me. 2012) (jury may draw all reasonable inferences)
- State v. Kenney, 534 A.2d 681 (Me. 1987) (circumstantial and direct evidence treated the same on sufficiency review)
- State v. Deschenes, 780 A.2d 295 (Me. 2001) (attempt to operate requires substantial step toward operation with intent)
- State v. Rossignol, 654 A.2d 1297 (Me. 1995) (proof of operation or attempted operation may be inferred from circumstances)
Judgment affirmed.