STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MATTHEW G. PILANT
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 854
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Trooper Thomas Miller stopped Matthew Pilant after observing excessive speed and erratic driving on April 9, 2008; Pilant’s vehicle had two blown tires and a shattered driver-side mirror.
- Pilant gave inconsistent or implausible explanations for the vehicle damage and admitted to drinking "definitely six" beers.
- Miller observed slurred, confused speech; bloodshot, glassy eyes; a strong odor of intoxicants; staggering and uncertain movements.
- Pilant could not perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test as instructed; Miller placed Pilant under arrest for DWI.
- At a bench trial nearly five years later, the trial court credited Miller’s testimony (except breath test evidence) and found Pilant guilty of DWI as an aggravated offender; Pilant appealed claiming insufficient evidence and attacked Miller’s credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Pilant was "in an intoxicated condition" | State: Miller’s observations (speech, eyes, odor, coordination), admission of six beers, vehicle control problems, and failure of HGN constituted sufficient proof of intoxication | Pilant: Miller’s memory had faded after nearly five years, making his testimony unreliable and lacking probative value (invoking destructive contradictions doctrine) | Court: Affirmed — under sufficiency standard, Miller’s credited observations provided adequate proof of intoxication; appellate court will not reweigh credibility and destructive-contradictions doctrine is inapplicable post-Porter |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fraga, 189 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. 2009) (trial court’s prerogative to evaluate witness credibility)
- State v. Honsinger, 386 S.W.3d 827 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (elements of intoxication: impairment, presence of substance, causal connection)
- State v. Edwards, 280 S.W.3d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (permissible witnesses to prove intoxication)
- State v. Vanosdol, 974 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (observational evidence sufficient for DWI conviction)
- State v. Beckett, 858 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (destructive contradictions doctrine explained)