State v. Seitz, 384 S.W.3d 384

Appellant Seitz was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI), a class B misdemeanor, based on a trial to the court.
Deputy Long observed Seitz speeding and crossing a center line, then stopped him after a brief chase.
Deputy Long noticed a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and watery/dilated eyes; HGN test yielded six of six.
Seitz admitted consuming alcohol after the deputy asked about drinking.
Seitz declined to perform further field sobriety tests or a breath test; deputy arrested him for intoxication.
Defense presented expert and lay witnesses; expert estimated BAC around 0.053–0.063% but did not have audio from the stop; bartender and acquaintance testified to alcohol consumption; trial court found Seitz guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the judgment on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt?	Seitz	State	Yes; the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supported intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence sustains verdict if reasonable juror could convict)
State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406 (Mo. banc 2002) (fact-finder may believe some or all testimony when assessing evidence)
State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc 2008) (describes reviewing sufficiency by viewing evidence favorably to verdict)
State v. Schroeder, 330 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. banc 2011) (defines intoxicated condition in terms of impairment to operate a vehicle)
State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. App. W.D.2002) (intoxication may be proven by witnesses with reasonable opportunity to observe)
State v. Adams, 163 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. App. S.D.2005) (even without BAC, intoxication shown by substantial evidence of impairment)