State v. Buol, 994 N.W.2d 98

On Oct. 25, 2020, a deputy responded to a reported vehicle accident and found Timothy Buol in an ambulance on a gurney with a cervical collar; Buol admitted he had been driving and slid into a ditch.
The deputy detected a strong odor of alcohol, Buol said he drank before driving and had not consumed alcohol after the crash, and the deputy conducted HGN (horizontal and vertical gaze nystagmus) tests that indicated impairment.
A warrant-authorized blood draw was performed the next day; laboratory results showed a BAC of .098.
At a county-court bench trial the court convicted Buol of DUI, open container, and careless driving; Buol appealed to the district court claiming insufficient evidence.
In the district-court appeal Buol argued only insufficiency as to the DUI; the district court affirmed the DUI conviction.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed only the DUI sufficiency issue (declining to reach the other convictions for preservation reasons) and affirmed, holding the evidence was sufficient to support the DUI conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to prove DUI (operation/physical control while impaired)	Evidence (admission he was driving, odor, HGN results, BAC .098) supports inference he was impaired while operating the vehicle; any testing delay goes to weight.	No evidence established timeframe showing impairment at time of operation; chemical test was delayed and thus insufficient to prove impairment when driving.	Affirmed. Circumstantial evidence + admission allowed a rational factfinder to infer impairment at time of operation; delay affected weight, not admissibility.
Preservation of claims for open container and careless driving	District court reviewed DUI; district court may limit consideration to errors raised; State argues other claims not properly presented.	Buol listed "insufficient evidence" in county court but did not present those issues to district court as required.	Court declined to review those convictions (not properly presented to district court); only DUI considered absent plain error.

State v. Taylor, 310 Neb. 376, 966 N.W.2d 510 (discusses appellate standard of review for county-court criminal appeals)
State v. Martin, 18 Neb. App. 338, 782 N.W.2d 37 (Court of Appeals decision on insufficiency where no timeframe tied defendant's intoxication to driving)
State v. Blackman, 254 Neb. 941, 580 N.W.2d 546 (delay between operation and testing goes to weight; facts supported inference defendant was intoxicated when last operated vehicle)
State v. Dinslage, 280 Neb. 659, 789 N.W.2d 29 (reaffirming that timing between operation and testing is a weight issue for the factfinder)
State v. Kuhl, 276 Neb. 497, 755 N.W.2d 389 (explaining DUI may be shown by indicia of intoxication or chemical test)
Houser v. American Paving Asphalt, 299 Neb. 1, 907 N.W.2d 16 (on the statement-of-errors requirement and its role in framing issues for appellate review)