State v. Bayardelger, CAAP-19-0000344

Defendant Temuulen Bayardelger was charged in District Court with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence (OVUII) under HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) after a May 25, 2017 traffic stop.
Officer observed Bayardelger's Honda CRV drift out of its lane five times over about a mile before stopping the vehicle.
During the stop, officer smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, noticed Bayardelger had red, watery/glassy eyes, and had to ask twice for his driver’s license.
Field sobriety test (FST) evidence was suppressed at trial; a second officer had administered the FST before arrest.
The District Court convicted Bayardelger based on the driving behavior and other indicia of impairment despite suppression of the FST.
On appeal, Bayardelger argued the evidence was insufficient to support the OVUII conviction; the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supported an OVUII conviction absent FST evidence	State: Officer's observations—egregious lane drifting, odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, and delayed responses—constitute sufficient indicia of impairment	Bayardelger: With FST evidence suppressed, remaining observations are insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed: Substantial evidence supported conviction based on driving pattern and other indicia of alcohol impairment even without FST evidence

State v. Grace, 107 Haw. 133, 111 P.3d 28 (App. 2005) (sets substantial-evidence standard and directs viewing evidence in favor of prosecution)
State v. Ferrer, 95 Haw. 409, 23 P.3d 744 (App. 2001) (field sobriety observations count as indicia of impairment like other physical signs)
Meador v. State, 674 So.2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (observations of FSTs—other than HGN—are analogous to common signs of impairment)