398 S.W.3d 928
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Finch was stopped shortly after fleeing a late-night liquor theft in a car driven by Finch.
- Officers observed Finch with slurred speech, bloodshot and watery eyes, and very uncertain balance; he nearly fell when touched.
- Finch admitted recent use of hydrocodone and marijuana, though he had not been drinking.
- Two officers evaluated Finch and concluded his driving ability was impaired; a drug recognition evaluator and a field sobriety tester testified to impairment.
- Finch was convicted of misdemeanor DWI at a bench trial; he challenged sufficiency of the evidence to prove intoxication and impairment.
- The appellate court reaffirmed the conviction, applying Hoy’s framework and holding the evidence supported impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves impairment for DWI | Finch argues no proof of impairment. | Finch argues the state failed to prove intoxicated condition and impaired driving. | Affirmed; evidence supported impairment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hoy, 219 S.W.3d 796 (Mo.App.2007) (three Hoy components: impairment, presence of substance, causation)
- State v. Wahl, 89 S.W.3d 513 (Mo.App.2002) (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Cassel, SD31784, — S.W.3d -, 2013 WL 1755493 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013) (evidence must be viewed in favor of state; disregard contrary evidence)
- State v. Jackson, 186 S.W.3d 873 (Mo.App.2006) (may rely on officers’ testimony for sub-missible case)