State v. Davis, 128 So. 3d 1195

On Oct. 25, 2010 defendant Eric Charles Davis drove a pickup that sideswiped a Ford Explorer and rear-ended a Toyota RAV4, then fled the scene, later making a smoking U‑turn; witnesses recorded the plate and reported he did not stop.
Deputies who later encountered Davis observed a smoking pickup with hood pressed against the windshield, a deflated left front tire, and Davis appearing sluggish with bloodshot, very slurred speech.
Davis was transported to the hospital; he admitted ingesting Alprazolam (Xanax) that day, possessed a prescription bottle filled that day with fewer pills than dispensed, and medical staff diagnosed acute benzodiazepine intoxication.
Deputies reported he refused chemical testing and exhibited gait instability and repeated eye closure during a HGN attempt; trial court found him guilty of DWI (fourth or subsequent).
Defendant argued on appeal the evidence (particularly Dr. Morse’s diagnosis) was insufficient because lab results were not admitted and his symptoms could be explained by crash injuries; he also asserted statutory affirmative defenses and challenged sentencing details.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Davis)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove DWI by controlled substance (Alprazolam)	Witnesses observed intoxication indicia, admissions of drug use, possession of recently filled Alprazolam bottle with missing pills, and medical diagnosis—sufficient under Jackson.	Medical evidence insufficient because lab results were not admitted; observed behavior could be explained by crash injuries.	Evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution was sufficient to prove DWI beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed.
Applicability of statutory affirmative defenses (label warning; non‑excessive dosage)	Not applicable: defendant was charged under the subsection covering controlled dangerous substances.	Defenses asserted that bottle lacked warning and no proof of exceeding prescribed dosage.	Affirmative defenses apply only to drugs that are not controlled dangerous substances; Alprazolam is Schedule IV, so defenses do not apply.
Mandatory fine omitted from on‑the‑record sentence	State did not contest that La. R.S. 14:98(E)(1)(a) imposes a $5,000 fine.	Defendant noted discrepancy between minute entry and transcript.	Court found sentence illegally lenient because fine was not pronounced on the record but declined to impose or remand to impose the fine; otherwise affirmed.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Delanueville, 90 So.3d 15 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (applies Jackson standard in Louisiana DWI sufficiency review)
State v. Kestle, 996 So.2d 275 (La. 2008) (officer testimony about observable impairment and refusal to test can support DWI conviction)
State v. Hightower, 116 So.2d 699 (La. 1959) (defines intoxication as any impairment to ability to operate a vehicle)
State v. Vidal, 901 So.2d 484 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (State must prove operation and influence by alcohol or drugs)