State v. Honsinger, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1251

Honsinger was convicted of driving while intoxicated under §577.010.1.
Appellant appeals on two grounds: insufficient evidence and plain error in admitting HGN testimony due to improper foundation.
Standard of review limits analysis to evidence favorable to the judgment; credibility of witnesses is for the trial court.
Facts show crash in a Burger King lot; vehicle running; appellant unable to stand or keep eyes open; glassy, watery eyes; slurred speech.
Appellant admitted alcohol and drugs (gin and tonic, Xanax, marijuana) and officer smelled marijuana at the scene.
HGN test showed lack of smooth pursuit and nystagmus; test not completed due to appellant's inability to keep eyes open.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for DWI elements	Honsinger argues insufficient proof of impairment, presence of a drug, and causation.	Rahmeyer contends the evidence fails to prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.	Evidence supports all three elements; guilt affirmed.
Plain error in admitting HGN testimony	Honsinger contends foundation for HGN was lacking.	Rahmeyer argues no reversible plain error; no timely objection.	Plain error review denied; admission upheld.

State v. Graves, 858 S.W.3d 536 (Mo.App. S.D.2012) (standard for sufficiency review; consider favorable evidence)
State v. Savick, 347 S.W.3d 147 (Mo.App. S.D.2011) (drugs proof and causation in DWI cases)
Hoy v. State, 219 S.W.3d 796 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (causation and impairment linkage in intoxication proof)
Washington by Washington v. Barnes Hosp., 897 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. banc 1995) (foundation and probative value considerations for expert testimony)
State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (admissibility and cure of foundation deficiencies)
State v. Jackson, 186 S.W.3d 873 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (plain error review not satisfied when no timely objection)